Which camera would you choose? (Page 2): A used Canon 7Dmkll, because it will do ANYTHING you could possibly want to shoot. Portraits, sports, BIF's, video, ANYTHING!!! SS...

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

CloudyCoastPhotography wrote:

If you had $1000 to spend on a camera body, which would you choose, and why?

A used Canon 7Dmkll, because it will do ANYTHING you could possibly want to shoot.
Portraits, sports, BIF's, video, ANYTHING!!!
SS

Hank Radt

nikon_jon wrote:

As I think of others (Canon with their diversification into office machines and copiers, Olympus with their expansion into medical technical products, and Sony into...everything) I have to wonder if they could stay in business depending on camera technology alone, without the cushion of other products to give them revenue to work with.

Hey, I'm happy that you're delighted with your Nikon.

But, as a multi-decade veteran of the corporate world, it doesn't exactly work that way. On the one hand, individual business units rarely subsidize (cushion) other business units - just doesn't make sense. Think of it this way - if a corporation had a unit that was consistently not achieving the required corporate profit rate or, worse, losing money, why would HQ continue to pour money into it? You wouldn't if you were the CEO, you'd put your money into the units that were making more money (otherwise the board would find someone who would - the board, representing the shareholders - wants to maximize total corporate profits, or else the shareholders vote them out...).

On the other, many corporations have centralized R&D units, from which each business unit can draw technology. So, if Canon's and Olympus' R&D units focus on image quality (for copiers or medical imaging), or Sony's R&D focuses on electronics (for televisions, cameras, video games) while relying on lens specialists (say Zeiss) for optics technology, the individual business units can benefit from the centralized research, at a lower unit cost, because the cost of the research is spread over more products. BTW, Nikon makes more than cameras: lithography systems, microscopes, binoculars and metrology (measurement) products and undoubtedly leverages its central research across these products - it no more stands on camera technology alone than the others do.

Ultimately, the competition among these, and others, drives improvements across the industry. As soon as one company comes out with an advance that increases their sales (because consumers now want it), the others are going to replicate - or better - surpass it, so as not to lose - or better - to gain customers. Those companies that don't adapt fall by the wayside - not many Kodaks, Polaroids, Yashicas around these days, except in collectors' hands. What this means for the OP is that it's pretty hard to go wrong with any of the major brands at this price point.

Again, glad you like your Nikon, but keep in mind that the Nikon you have today owes as much to itself as it does to Canon, Olympus, Sony, and others...

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

CloudyCoastPhotography wrote:

If you had $1000 to spend on a camera body, which would you choose, and why?

What camera bodies are you talking about here?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Hank Radt wrote:

Hey, I'm happy that you're delighted with your Nikon.

But, as a multi-decade veteran of the corporate world, it doesn't exactly work that way. On the one hand, individual business units rarely subsidize (cushion) other business units - just doesn't make sense. Think of it this way - if a corporation had a unit that was consistently not achieving the required corporate profit rate or, worse, losing money, why would HQ continue to pour money into it? You wouldn't if you were the CEO, you'd put your money into the units that were making more money (otherwise the board would find someone who would - the board, representing the shareholders - wants to maximize total corporate profits, or else the shareholders vote them out...).

On the other, many corporations have centralized R&D units, from which each business unit can draw technology. So, if Canon's and Olympus' R&D units focus on image quality (for copiers or medical imaging), or Sony's R&D focuses on electronics (for televisions, cameras, video games) while relying on lens specialists (say Zeiss) for optics technology, the individual business units can benefit from the centralized research, at a lower unit cost, because the cost of the research is spread over more products. BTW, Nikon makes more than cameras: lithography systems, microscopes, binoculars and metrology (measurement) products and undoubtedly leverages its central research across these products - it no more stands on camera technology alone than the others do.

Ultimately, the competition among these, and others, drives improvements across the industry. As soon as one company comes out with an advance that increases their sales (because consumers now want it), the others are going to replicate - or better - surpass it, so as not to lose - or better - to gain customers. Those companies that don't adapt fall by the wayside - not many Kodaks, Polaroids, Yashicas around these days, except in collectors' hands. What this means for the OP is that it's pretty hard to go wrong with any of the major brands at this price point.

Again, glad you like your Nikon, but keep in mind that the Nikon you have today owes as much to itself as it does to Canon, Olympus, Sony, and others...

Hey, I'm happy that you're delighted with your Nik... (show quote)

r.grossner Loc: Rockford IL & Sarasota FL

CloudyCoastPhotography wrote:

If you had $1000 to spend on a camera body, which would you choose, and why?

I would go with a D7200 as a crop sensor backup to my D750 FF along with the 1.5x perspective change to all my FX lenses.

jmvaugh Loc: Albuquerque

Hank Radt wrote:

Hey, I'm happy that you're delighted with your Nikon.

But, as a multi-decade veteran of the corporate world, it doesn't exactly work that way. On the one hand, individual business units rarely subsidize (cushion) other business units - just doesn't make sense. Think of it this way - if a corporation had a unit that was consistently not achieving the required corporate profit rate or, worse, losing money, why would HQ continue to pour money into it? You wouldn't if you were the CEO, you'd put your money into the units that were making more money (otherwise the board would find someone who would - the board, representing the shareholders - wants to maximize total corporate profits, or else the shareholders vote them out...).

On the other, many corporations have centralized R&D units, from which each business unit can draw technology. So, if Canon's and Olympus' R&D units focus on image quality (for copiers or medical imaging), or Sony's R&D focuses on electronics (for televisions, cameras, video games) while relying on lens specialists (say Zeiss) for optics technology, the individual business units can benefit from the centralized research, at a lower unit cost, because the cost of the research is spread over more products. BTW, Nikon makes more than cameras: lithography systems, microscopes, binoculars and metrology (measurement) products and undoubtedly leverages its central research across these products - it no more stands on camera technology alone than the others do.

Ultimately, the competition among these, and others, drives improvements across the industry. As soon as one company comes out with an advance that increases their sales (because consumers now want it), the others are going to replicate - or better - surpass it, so as not to lose - or better - to gain customers. Those companies that don't adapt fall by the wayside - not many Kodaks, Polaroids, Yashicas around these days, except in collectors' hands. What this means for the OP is that it's pretty hard to go wrong with any of the major brands at this price point.

Again, glad you like your Nikon, but keep in mind that the Nikon you have today owes as much to itself as it does to Canon, Olympus, Sony, and others...

Hey, I'm happy that you're delighted with your Nik... (show quote)

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

jmvaugh wrote:

I’d buy a refurbished Canon 80D. I love the one I bought new and since then I’ve seen the refurbished for $999.

I would think you could get a refurbished 80D for less than that. I bought one from Canon about 10 months ago for $850 so I'd expect them to be less than that 10 months later.

jmvaugh Loc: Albuquerque

rmorrison1116 wrote:

I would think you could get a refurbished 80D for less than that. I bought one from Canon about 10 months ago for $850 so I'd expect them to be less than that 10 months later.

Good to know, in case for some terrible reason the one I have meets some untimely demise.

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

lamiaceae wrote:

For me? At the moment a Pentax K-3ii or K-P to go with my K-3. Three variations on a 24MP theme. If used and or if I had any money left, perhaps a limited model Pentax 43mm, Pentax 31mm, or Pentax 77mm lens.

: Pentax, still a Best Buy!!!

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

CloudyCoastPhotography wrote:

If you had $1000 to spend on a camera body, which would you choose, and why?

If I had an extra $1000 to spend on a camera body, I would have to ask myself do I really need another camera body. I started out with a starter camera then up graded to a better camera that had a few more featured that I wanted. Do I need another body? NO!. I need to learn how to use what I have. $1000 can go a long way for photography classes and books.

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

Funny, no-one has mentioned the Mirrorless Fujifilm "x" series cameras. If I were starting all over, I would really consider the X-t2 or the X-t20, really great stuff in mirrorless, and around $1-K. I don't own one but WOULD. RJM

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

CloudyCoastPhotography wrote:

If you had $1000 to spend on a camera body, which would you choose, and why?

The used Fuji Xpro2 available from one of the big three. Because it's a great camera & a great price

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

If I had to start from scratch, I would purchase a Pentax K-70 + 18-135mm kit, currently priced $850 at B&H.

If I could use what I already have, I would purchase a Pentax KP, currently priced $999.99 at B&H {I already have the 18-135mm and all other lenses I might need}. The KP appears to have better build quality, but images posted by users have demonstrated that both cameras gracefully provide much higher ISO values than has been common until now.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

steve DeMott wrote:

If I had an extra $1000 to spend on a camera body, I would have to ask myself do I really need another camera body. I started out with a starter camera then up graded to a better camera that had a few more featured that I wanted. Do I need another body? NO!. I need to learn how to use what I have. $1000 can go a long way for photography classes and books.

$1000 can take you on a photo vacation.

Quinn 4

$1,000 for a camera body. I want a camera that will hold it value not 5 years but 10 years from now. Will it still be working right after 10 years of use? What I am seeing and reading I don't think digital cameras can do that, after two years their are totally obsolete and your $1000 is in the wind. People stop and read what you are writing $1,000 ,$3000, $4000 just for a camera body. Add $2000 or more for a lens. How are you paying for all of this? One end up paying off for item that has become obsolete. If that is not nuts I don't known what is.