BlackRipleyDog

You say that you had Nikon film cameras before. What lenses do you still have?

Boris Ekner Loc: From Sweden, living in Guatemala

As you I have years of experience with 35mm film, but as digital is so much different one needs to relearn.

Here's a repost of my answer to a similar question in another thread:

Here's what I did:
-Budget: no more than $500
-Searched for $500 DSLR's on eBay & Amazon in order to understand what I might get.
-Found some favorite models that I compared on cameradecision.com. I had no brand preferences.
-Read plenty of reviews on the cameras I found interesting.

My priorities were; very good professional reviews, the highest pixel count possible, RAW format option, wifi, built in GPS, fair prices & f/values on future lenses.

Nikon D5300 turned out to be the final option. With my personal preferences, and budget, it was by far the best option. Price paid: $449 on eBay, including an 18-55mm lens, plus some other stuff in the bundle.

I've had the camera for some time now and I have no regrets on my purchase. On the contrary, I'm very happy with what I got.

Your best option is probably not my best, and vice versa. Best of luck on your persuit of your best camera. ...and don't rush it to get one quickly. Take your time, i.e. weeks, to learn about your options and what you favor.

dlavallee

Hi there.. none. Due to financial difficulties in the late 80s.. I had a number of nikon f lenses, two nikon bodies: nikon f2a and nikkormat, as well as a bronica etrs with an 80 & telephoto (cant remember fl, but i think a 150mm).

dlavallee

Thanks everyone for all the great info!

While I was considering the Canon 5d (mk I for less than $500.00 used) as an inexpensive way to see how I like the Canon system in a full frame format; however, based on some of the responses here I am having second thoughts.. I can afford to take some time because I now have a friend's old Sony a100 to play with (although I'm not very happy with it).
The full frame is imortant to me because I plan on taking a number of landscape photos, and I've always been drawn to using wider angle lenses when shooting those type of photos..

The mirrorless option has come up; which on first thought sounded great because of it being less complicated, simplicity, etc., but I am concerned about preview in low light, auto focus, and lens compatibility.

Does anyone have thoughts on getting a Nikon D3? It's can be had for under $700.00 but it's only 12.1MP, but even that should be good for printing up to 16x20, right? My only other concern would be that, since they were largely a professional camera, it might be hard to find one without a huge shutter count...

Thanks,

Dave

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Invest in some time go to a store and find a camera you feel comfortable with. It will be in your hand for a long time if you get into photography.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Invest in some time go to a store and find a camera you feel comfortable with. It will be in your hand for a long time if you get into photography.

Kuzano

Typical first question out of a car salesman's mount (I were one once-Merceded).

"Sir what payment do we have to meet to put you in the driver's seat and off the lot, TODAY!"

BlackRipleyDog

So there is no need to stay with one brand like Nikon as you have no legacy glass on which to fall back on.

I guess it comes down to what goals for your photography are you striving for? If it is just to make snapshots of daily life for family and social media consumption, then an IPhone or Galaxy will do that or a point-and-shoot camera which are a little more capable but easy to tote around and can be had relatively cheap.

If you want to get back into SLR photography, then the world is your oyster, as they say. It just depends on what you want to spend for equipment, is your computer up to speed to handle the files, software (like Photoshop), supplies. If you want to unleash the inner artist in you and produce prints for your personal gallery or to sell, it gets more expensive.

12 mpx is a reasonable target for resolution. Older Nikons like the D300s (crop sensor) or the D700 (full frame) fall in that range. As models get older those available on the secondary market get fewer and fewer and ones with no apparent problems or excess wear and tear are even more scarce. But they can be found. I am unfamiliar with Canon models but they are no slouch in their performance. One model I can recommend is a Nikon D7100. Two generations back but with great image quality and you can hang cheaper DX glass on it. Good prices on refurbished ones. If you are looking at the D3; don't and go with the D700. Essentially the same generation and sensor but the D3 was intended for the the professional and as a result most of them were used like rented mules. The D700 was a smaller form factor and less expensive. A lot of them could originally be vanity purchases and would tend to have minimal mileage on them.

Everybody advising you for the most part have been right as the current models are in a lot of ways head and shoulders above these older models even though they were and still are, held in high regard as they were true trailblazers.

So your goals play into this decision. Over almost 10 years I went through 5 successive bodies starting with a 3mpx Coolpix to the 36mpx D800 today. It gives me the output that helps me attain my goals of printing and printing large if needed.

dlavallee

Thanks! Sounds like great advice, and that was one of my concerns about getting a used body with an FX sensor in general, and a D3 in particular..

stefane

From what i have been able to gather in the last 4 years of jumping into photgraphy as a hobby . For landscape use i would look at in body features with the best dynamic range , full frame for depth of field and the sharpest wide angle lens i could afford and if you want large prints a high mega pixel sensor . I stumbled into sony also with no previous experience with other brands other than point and shoots . With the same interest as you and a lot of research and limited budget i ended up with a sony a850 and sigma dg 17-35mm for my landscapes. Thats my two cents from a hobby photographer on a budget . Also look at the minolta maxxum lenses

BlackRipleyDog

I don't mean to muddy the waters but if you want something a little retro and resembling the classic Nikon bodies in black or chrome, look at the Df. 16mpx, full frame, dials for controls, no video which caters more to the stills purist. Same sensor as the D4. Regardless of your choice insist on a USA model, not a grey market one intended for the overseas market.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi Dave,

In fact, you probably don't need a full frame camera and might be shooting yourself in the foot, insisting on one. Full frame cameras tend to be bigger, heavier and more expensive... And, not just for the camera itself, but also for the lenses you'll need to use on it.

The Canon 5D "Classic" was the first affordable FF camera, introduced in 2005. Prior to that, the Canon 1Ds (2002) was the only choice of FF... selling for more than twice as much! Canon 5D "C" was a fine camera in its day and saw immediate popularity with wedding photographers and others, but is pretty primitive now, by today's standards. For example it's ISO range is 100 to 1600, expandable to L: 50 and H: 3200. in comparison, the 5D Mark II released three years later has ISO range of 100-6400, expandable to L: 50 and H1: 12800, H2: 25600. Today's 5D Mark IV offers a range of 100 to 32000 ISO, expandable to L: 50, H1: 51200 and H2: 102400. 5DC also uses a relatively primitive 9-point AF system (which was largely carried over unchanged into the 5D Mk II, unfortunately). The AF system of today's most entry-level Canon models (APS-C Rebel T6 and SL1) is pretty much equal to that of of the 5DC and 5DII.

It might seem silly, but the main reason I didn't buy a 5DC was that it lacked a self-cleaning sensor and developed a reputation as a "dust magnet". I was using already using 10D and 30D cameras without self-cleaning sensors, and spending more time than I liked doing manual sensor cleanings! A lot of my work is done in rather dusty conditions and I can't hesitate to make lens changes or take time to baby my cameras, so I had to do cleanings roughly monthly, on average. A 5DC would have been even worse and needed more frequent cleanings than the APS-C models I was shooting with. Now using both FF and APS-C models with self-cleaning sensors, I don't need to do cleanings more than once or twice a year... maybe even less.

The 5DC also was one of Canon's last 12-bit cameras (as were my 30D). All later models were 14-bit. At one time Canon stopped supporting the earlier models in their own software (including my old 10D and 30D cameras)... this may have been corrected, I don't know for certain.... Canon's Digital Photo Pro software went through a bunch of incremental upgrades and fixes the last few years. No worries, though... images from the older models still can be handled quite well by third party software such as Adobe Elements or Lightroom, and a host of others.

Also, 5DC uses "old school" NiCad batteries (BP511/BP512). Starting with 5DII (and 60D/7D APS-C models), they now use L-Ion battery packs (LP-E6/E6N) that offer more shots per charge, don't suffer from "memory effect" and hold their charge better while stored.

5DC also cannot do video. In 2008 the 21MP 5DII was ground-breaking with its HD video capabilities... Far cheaper than professional video cameras, plus able to use around 60 or 65 lenses, most of which are a whole lot less expensive than comparable cine lenses... as well as smaller and more usable in tight spaces to get shots that weren't possible with the typical video camera... 5DII and 5D Mark III continue to see wide use in Hollywood and worldwide by the movie industry.

The 5DIII (22MP, 2012) finally got a substantially improved AF system. Largely the same as what the top-of-the line 1D-series models were and still are using, it's 61-pointed is night and day improved over the earlier models.

The 5D Mark IV was introduced last year and got a number of incremental improvements throughout.... Probably the most obvious and notable of which was a big resolution increase to 30MP.

But, honestly, you really might want to consider starting out with an APS-C camera instead of FF. For example, at around $1000 a Canon 80D (APS-C sensor) gives you more resolution than 5DC, 5DII or 5DIII. It's a 24MP camera with ISO range 100-16000, expandable to H: 25600. And it has a high performance 45-point AF system, usable down to -3EV (5DC and 5DII are good to about -1EV), with 27 "f/8 capable" AF points (5DC and 5DII are "f/5.6 limited"... 5DIII has a small cluster of four or five "f/8 capable" AF points at the very center of it's array).

The Canon APS-C cameras can use all EF and EF-S Canon lenses.... around 85 or 90 total to choose among now (and over 100 million manufactured the past 25 or 30 years). In contrast, FF models are limited to FF-capable EF lenses... roughly 60 or 65 of them currently. That's still a pretty good selection... just expect to spend more and carry a heavier bag of gear, though, if you insist on a FF camera.

For example, Canon has some very good ultrawide, full frame capable EF lenses in their EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM ($1000, uses 77mm filters, weighs 615 grams) and EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM ($2000, 82mm filters, 790 grams). The older EF 17-40mm f/4L USM ain't bad, either ($750, 77mm filters, 475 grams). All those will fit and work on an APS-C 80D, too... But with it you'd also have option of EF-S 10-22mm USM ($600, 77mm filters, 386 grams) or EF-S 10-18mm IS STM ($280, 67mm filters, 240 grams)!

It might be even more dramatic if you plan to frequently use telephoto lenses... for example I do a lot of sports photography and frequently shoot handheld with an APS-C format 7D Mark II fitted with an EF 300mm f/4L IS USM lens ($1350, 77mm filters, 1190 grams). In order to use a full frame camera and still be able to frame my subjects the same way, I'd need to instead use an EF 500mm f/4L IS USM lens (current II version: $9000, uses drop-in filters because the front objective is about 150mm diameter, and weighs 3190 grams)... Plus a good sturdy tripod to sit it all upon, since that lens is too big to hand hold for more than a few minutes. More than twice the size, triple the weight, and over 6X the cost... even without considering the tripod! No thanks! (I do use a 500/4... but for wildlife photography mostly.... and nearly always on a tripod!)

Besides, you might be surprised how good image quality an APS-C camera can produce. Assuming quality lenses and good techniques are used, and cropping that's kept to a minimum, I'd wager you'd find it difficult to tell the difference between a 16x20" print made from a 24MP 80D APSC image file versus one from a 21MP 5DII or 22MP 5DIII FF image file.... In fact, a print done with a modern 80D image could very well be superior to one done with a file from a four-generation old 13MP 5DC.

Where full frame can be helpful are for even larger prints. They also can be better choices for very high ISO work in unusually low light conditions. The more "entry-level FF" Canon 6D was their best at that for a long time, being a slightly more modest 20MP camera. The new 30MP 5DIV might now rival it, though. (And rumor has it there will be a 6D Mark II announced later this year.)

FF also offers slightly more control over Depth-of-Field factors.... DoF doesn't actually change depending upon sensor format. DoF only changes with focal length, distance and aperture size changes. However, when we change formats, in order to frame a subject the same way with FF we need to either user a longer focal length or move closer... or a bit of both. Those changes can make for "stronger blur effects with FF"... Or, another way of looking at it, to equal what's possible with FF, a crop sensor camera might require approx. 1-stop larger aperture. For this reason, FF may be preferred for portraiture.

It also effects small apertures, but once again not purely because of the different size sensors, but more with the differences in how we handle their images. Diffraction is an effect that robs fine detail from images at too-small apertures. Using a standardized comparison print size, a 20MP APS-C camera starts to see diffraction after about f/7.1 (though it's not really very problematic until smaller settings such as f/11 and beyond). In comparison, a FF camera doesn't begin to see diffraction setting in until f/10... about one stop smaller (and thus is more usable at, say, f/16). The reason for this is that to make any given size of print the APS-C image needs to be magnified more than a FF camera's image. For example, with FF an 8x10 print is approx. 8X enlargement... but the same size print from an APS-C is roughly 13X magnification, which will show any effects of diffraction more apparently. For this reason and a few others, a FF camera is often preferable for landscape or architectural photography. Possibly also for macro work that requires small apertures.

But, these are the extremes.... really big prints, really high ISOs, very large or especially small apertures all might see some benefit from FF. But for the vast majority of real world uses... APS-C can do just as well... much less expensively, with less hefty and smaller stuff to lug around, and a wider array of lenses to choose from! Typically APS-C cameras also offer faster continuous shooting rates, faster flash sync speeds... as well as built-in (but wimpy) flashes, articulated LCD screens, and possibly some other features that are rarely found on FF. There's a reason that 90 or 95% of DSLRs sold use smaller than FF sensors.... The vast majority of people don't really need FF. I'd even wager that a lot of FF users actually don't get any benefit from the larger format.... they just bought the camera because they've heard "FF is better".

I provided detailed info and examples of Canon cameras and lenses because that's the system I use and know best. Truthfully, when it comes to the cameras themselves brands don't matter all that much... all make excellent and capable DSLRs.oday Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax all offer one or multiple models of full frame cameras. They all also offer a variety of APS-C models. Of the "big five", Olympus is the only one who is committed to only making cameras using the even smaller "four/thirds" format sensor, which allows their cameras and lenses to be especially compact. But, look very carefully beyond the camera itself... at the system behind it including lenses and accessories, as well as third party manufactured items for use with it. Check both availability and cost of lenses and accessories, especially if you plan to use some specialty items. T

Canon and Nikon have the largest selection of lenses and accessories. They also both use "in-lens" image stabilization (Canon pioneered IS in the 1990s... but now everyone else has followed their lead with some form of stabilization). Sony has a few lenses with stabilization, but mostly relies upon in-camera method. Pentax and Oly both use in-camera stabilization.

Sony has been very innovative with mirroless designs, as well as electronic viewfinders and shutters. They also make many of the sensor used in Nikon and Pentax cameras. Canon makes their own sensors and was the first to fully commit to "better" CMOS, while others still used CCD for a number of years. Today, though, all these manufacturers are using CMOS. Pentax has emphasized making better sealed cameras for weather and dust resistance (though at the higher end, all manufacturers do this to a large extent).

It can be difficult to choose among brands, though careful consideration of the systems beyond the camera body itself can help a lot. It also might be useful to go to a store and handle various brands yourself... see if the ergonomics and control layout of one or another brand appeals more or less to you. Be sure to turn the cameras on and play with the menus to see if one or another seems more intuitive and easy to use. Maybe you'll find a difference... maybe not. Beware of sales people pushing you to buy one brand or another... There may be incentives offered to them, making their too-freely offered opinions very biased!

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

The human eye can't really much difference in the pixel count once you get up to 10 . Where pixels really count if your making a murals. I would be concerned more on the features that a camera has. What you can do inside the camera.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Nikon D500, anything else is a joke.

BebuLamar

Really nothing better than the D500?