Best digital camera around $1000?

[DreamerTheresa]

I need a birthday present to myself come October. So I'm saving for a nice camera.



Would you guys mind giving me some suggestions for a camera around $1000?



Mike and I will be moving to Wyoming in the future, and I want to have a real solid photographic documentary of it.

And then, of course, there will be the scenery and weird animals that live out there, too, that I'll just HAVE to get pics of.


Thanks!

 

[bhmsupra]

I have been reading reviews "Consumer reports" on the Sony DSLR - A700H. It's a full SLR machine and supposed to be a good value. I haven't pulled the trigger on one though so I really dont know. I like Sony and I want a full "SLR" feature camera.

Good luck with your move and your camera.

 

[suprahero]

Patrick, is there anything that you don't know about.............:aigo:


DT, he also sells guns for a living.............:biglaugh:

 

[DreamerTheresa]

I have been reading reviews "Consumer reports" on the Sony DSLR - A700H. It's a full SLR machine and supposed to be a good value. I haven't pulled the trigger on one though so I really dont know. I like Sony and I want a full "SLR" feature camera.

Good luck with your move and your camera.

Thanks, man.

 

[shaeff]

I've been eying the Canon EOS 50D. The camera with a regular lens costs around $1500, though. I suppose that's a bit higher than your spending goal. Lots of camera shops will let you dicker the price a bit, though, if they understand that you'll return your business to them.

 

[ms07s]

X2 on Canon. My brother has an older Rebel, and I must say it makes beautiful photos.

 

[suprahero]

You said dicker..........:biglaugh:

O.K. back on topic.
I too am looking for a camera, but I don't really want to spend a grand. Do you have to spend that much to get quality pictures? I know you get what you pay for, but I was really only wanting to spend about five hundred. I still have to buy myself another pistol so my monies doesn't exactly runneth over.

Patrick, what did they say in that magazine about $500.00 cameras?

 

[DreamerTheresa]

I'm sure that you can get a fabulous camera for +/- $500. I paid $350 for my Canon A40 Powershot 6 years ago or so, and it's held up well, with great pictures.

I'm just looking for something professional grade, since I hope to maybe eventually sell prints of scenery and wildlife in Wyoming.

 

[FIL]

As I understand, the 50D isn't actually a huge improvement on the 40D. hence Canon still selling the 40D after the 50D's introduction... However, the 40D is now significantly cheaper than they were a few months ago...

mind you, if you're talking about 'professional grade', then in Canon's own eyes, there are only 2 pro cameras in their line up, and they're both 1D's...

that said, I've only just upgraded to a 1D Mk III about a month ago, from my 30D, and I've been selling photos for several years now...

 

[FIL]

oh, btw... if you're hoping to 'eventually sell prints', then consider whether you need to go all out on a pro body now, or just get a body that will work with the pro lenses you may buy in the next couple of years, as it may be an idea to buy a 40D or 450D in a kit now, and then slowly upgrade your lenses to canon L series stuff, then buy a pro body somewhere down the line...

 

[Clip]

i asked a photographer here about the nikon d40, d60 and he pointed me in the direction of canon's DSLRs. made me happy since i've got two canon ae-1s and am still extremely pleased with the quality of their 35mm photos.

 

[shaeff]

I've read numerous reports that states the 50D is WAY better than the 40D:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E50D/E50DA.HTM

It's inside where you'll find the Canon 50D's major changes. First is the new 15.1-megapixel APS-C CMOS sensor, a significant upgrade from the 40D's 10-megapixel sensor. Major changes to the design of the microlens array as well as to the sensor itself have actually reduced sensor noise despite the increase in resolution. The change has allowed Canon to offer a wider range of ISO settings than the company has ever offered, ranging from ISO 100 to 3,200, plus two higher settings: H1 is equivalent to ISO 6,400 and H2 takes the camera to 12,800.

Canon's new DIGIC 4 processor is a part of the equation, moving the extra data at a faster pace than its predecessor, and keeping the camera to a high 6.3 frames per second while maintaining that 14-bit data for RAW images (this is a slight speed drop from the 40D's 6.5 fps).

 

[FIL]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/

It appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor. At a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cm² (40D: 3.1 MP/cm², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cm²) the lens becomes the limiting factor. Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution. Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop. One consequence of this is that the 50% increase in pixel count over the 40D results in only a marginal amount of extra detail.

We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D. In some areas such as dynamic range and high ISO performance it's actually worse and that simply makes you wonder if the EOS 50D could have been an (even) better camera if its sensor had a slightly more moderate resolution.

This review was one of the ones that set me on a course towards a 1D Mk III... The 40D had not been a huge enough improvement over the 30D for what I do, to convince me to buy one, and the 50D was now not getting the glowing praise I was hoping for... Then the 5D Mk II came out, which in many ways is an awesome camera, but it was only a grand less than a 1D Mk III, and the AF performance was a long way behind the 1D... Plus, 10 fps

 

[FIL]

oh, that bit i quoted is on the 'conclusions' page, there's about 20 pages in the review, many of which are direct comparisons with the 40D and other competitors...

 

[shaeff]

Ah, very nice. Thanks for that! (I suppose I should do more research before questioning a photographer! LOL!)

 

[FIL]

as they said in there, the 50d is a very nice camera, but extra mp's on the same size sensor always means higher pixel density, and there's always a trade off....

for me, another thing to consider is the final file size.... i take a lot of photos at a race meeting, do i really need each one of those to be 50% bigger again for what appears to be not much gain... (and for some applications, no gain at all)

i am constantly surprised when i see my shots in print, because i always forget that the imperfections i can see on the screen, are usually less than 1 pixel by the time they hit the printer... (magazine / newspaper type stuff - blowups are another story)

 

[Scot]

IMO, There are hundreds of point and shoot cameras out there that are capable of taking great shots. Point and shoots are very convenient, easy to use, etc. I would compare them to the CT-26.... A great turbo, spools quickly, readily available, plug and play, great performance, reliable and convenient. Very well suited for most people. The daily driver....

Digital SLR's can do everything the point and shoot can do, (except slip into your pocket), and much much more. Compared to after market, bigger turbos, you have to be willing to be inconvenienced with a larger set up, more expense, greater learning curve with regards to achieving better results. And oh the possibilties. But the aggravation is well worth it... IMO.

You think allot of time is spent on this site comparing this and that. Wait until you get a DSLR and start lurking and learning about lens, flash, and technique on dpreview.com.

Back to the OP, I would go to the local Wolfe Camera and pick up both the Nikons and Cannons and see which one feels best in your hands.... (I'm talking about the DSLR's). Don't buy yet, go back and start reading the reviews and forums for each camera...

Once you pick a team, you will be married to it.... I'm an intelligent Nikon person and my buddy is a Cannon punk.... ha ha... JUST KIDDING Cannon people... I only have Nikon because I bought my Camera used from a friend and I had older Nikon lenses that work with my set-up .... You will notice that 99% of the pros shoot cannons at sporting events.

If you ask what is the best camera on dpreview.com, just like this forum, if someone asks what is the best turbo, the first answer is a question. What are your goals and what is the intended use... Don't get a DLSR if you are the type of person that doesn't like to hassle with stuff...

Another good online store to compare prices is bhphotovideo.com. Good Luck! and have fun with it...

 

[GotTurbos?]

I have a d90 that I love. It will run you around 1100 with the kit lens. It gets nothing but fantastic reviews and I believe its better than anything canon has to offer for the price. I'm not saying canon's are bad, I would love to have a 5d mkII, I'm just saying I think canon shines in the upper models and their low-mid ones aren't anything spectacular.

And now for some shameless plugs so you can kind of see the cameras performance.

And some pictures taken in my homemade softbox:

In any case, if you're looking to spend that much on a camera, the ONLY way to go is DSLR, the expandability they offer with different lenses and filters will prove to be very valuable if you're really into photography. Also like others have said, go to a store and hold them in your hands, you're a girl so this probably wont be that big of a deal for you since you have small hands, but I could not comfortable hold any of the Rebels, or the d40/d60. I would also try to stick to Canon or Nikon and stay away from the other brands which aren't nearly as specialized in photography.

 

[FIL]

I'm an intelligent Nikon person and my buddy is a Cannon punk.... ha ha... JUST KIDDING Cannon people... I only have Nikon because I bought my Camera used from a friend and I had older Nikon lenses that work with my set-up .... You will notice that 99% of the pros shoot cannons at sporting events.

That would explain why you can't spell Canon

Bang on the money there tho.... Both Canon and Nikon have their advantages and disadvantages, but at the end of the day, they're pretty much same same... You pick what you like and you'll be stuck with it... People very rarely sell everything they've acquired and start over...

I think you'll find Nikon are have started to gain some ground in the pro sports shooter market in recent years... There were certainly a lot more black lenses at Beijing than just 1%...

Looking at the Olympics, apparently in 2004, about 70% of camera gear used was Canon EOS bodies and EF lenses, while in 2008 people are talking a lot closer to 50%. Mind you, these are mostly people who don't get to buy their own gear, so corporate decisions probably speak just as loudly as brand loyalty here.

 

[Scot]

^ haha being a smart arse always comes back to bite ya!