Pentax K-1 and very happy with it.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

People tend to self-segregate into either Canon or Nikon users. For me, Canon was where I started, so that's where I've stayed.

Lenses are expensive, and good ones will last you decades. I started out Nikon, and will stay Nikon for the foreseeable future (I don't want to trash my two flashes and 4 lenses). Camera bodies don't hold value well. My $1000 D80 would be worth about $80 today. If you are not very picky and don't have to have the newest of everything, maybe find a good camera shop and get something used. You will save a BUNCH of money. I don't believe in scrimping on lenses, as those will last decades.

I started out with a D80 in 2007, and love it. I upgraded for a barely-used D300 (it only had 300 shutter activations on it), and the difference is amazing (and I use all the same lenses and flashes I had for my D80). It's not only a generation newer, but it's a step up from a 'consumer' camera into a 'semi-professional' camera. Now, there are no 'automatic' 'dummy' settings like on my D80 (separate settings for landscape, portraits, sports, etc). This makes me actually think it through and set the camera settings to the appropriate settings based on the situation. It will eventually make me a better photographer, IMO.

I love Ken Rockwell's website: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm . He reviews pretty much every new camera and accessory as it comes out. A lot of people hate his guts, but I can't seem to find any real rational reasons for this hatred. I find his reviews really helpful, and I don't buy a single camera item without checking his site out first. I used it to buy my first DSLR (my D80, 10 years ago), and I still go there now for updated reviews on the newest stuff.

He used to say Nikon and Canon were about the same. Recently, he changed his opinion. He now says Canon is the better over-all camera brand (compared to Nikon), as Canon is innovating and doing new stuff, whereas he says Nikon is just slapping new labels on stuff to sell new bodies. I don't know enough about either brand to determine if this is true or not.

I will say that I was a Nikon guy for years. I've been shooting Nikon since the early 1980s. I took a part-time photography job last year, and they had Canons. After a couple weeks of using my own gear, I ended up trying the Canons (in this case, a T6i Rebel). I could not believe how much I loved this camera! It weighed next to nothing, took fantastic pics, and was relatively easy to use (even though everything was opposite from Nikon - the zoom and focus rings worked backwards). I went from a deep critic to a true believer.

Now, these Canons were 10 years newer than what I was used to, and I think this is the difference I saw. Any new camera will be better than a 10-yr old model.

If I had to start from scratch today, I honestly don't know what I would do. I would be tempted to get a Canon Rebel, but I would have to rent a comparable Nikon (D5300) to compare the two. I plan to use my D300 for the next 5 years, at least.

Nikon D3300 with Nikon DX 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenss, plus the wifi thing and a speedlight. I have been very happy with the package - it was a gift.

My sister-in-law is a professional and all her equipment is Nikon. She played with mine last Christmas and approved, despite it not being a pro-level body.

Nikon D300S, bought new in 2013. It's a great camera, even though the technology is a bit dated compared to the latest Nikon offerings.

I'd get the Nikon D500 if I were looking for a replacement.

 
Nobody's using a Leica?
 

All I could afford from Leica is a discontinued DLUX 6 point and shoot, which takes awesome photos.

Nikon D80 for 10 years, and probably a D750 Full Frame if the price drops again.

Nikon D7200 with 18-200. Works well for me.

We travel quite a bit and I like to document what we see.

Have used Canon T2i, 7D, 6D, and 7DII, I was happy with all of them until I wanted the next step up.

Currently using 5D Mark IV and an 80D, even happier with them.


If you are looking for recommendations though, should let us know your budget and what you plan to use for. Something we love might suck in your planned application.

Fuji X-T1 and a pair of Fuji X-Pro1's. I don't photograph sports or anything that requires a super fast auto focus and I'm more than ok with the 16mp and using last generation camera's. Fuji is still doing firmware updates for the now 5 year old X-pro1.

I'm a Canon guy, my most recent is a 5D2, I'll most likely be getting a 5D3 or 4. I went with a friends advise and have been happy with Canon. I have quite a few lenses, I won't be changing brands.

Nikon D3 (college sports, location work); Nikon D5300 (primarily for internet video productions); Canon C100 for high-end video. 24-70/2.8, 80-200/2.8, and 300/2.8 for Nikon (along with the "kit" 18-55 lens for the D5300; 24-105/4.0 and 70-200/2.8 for the Canon.
It's all about choosing the right tool for the job.

I've been using Nikon since my mom let me have her old EM when I was in middle school.

These days I use a D800. I have some great lenses - Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 35mm f/1.4, Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro, and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8.

I know there is a lot of bias against third party lenses. I don't think it is justified anymore. At least the high-end third party lenses are excellent. I bought the Sigma macro because it tests as optically better than the closest comparable Nikon macro lenses (it's also more expensive). I was getting ready to buy the Nikon 70-200 when I came across a screaming deal on the Tamron, which tests as optically as good as the Nikon. I have been completely satisfied with both of them.

As much as I love that equipment, it is big and heavy and a pain in the ass to carry around.

I mostly use Micro Four Thirds equipment now. It is basically a mini-SLR (minus the "R" - no mirror or prism) with a slightly smaller than APS-C/DX sensor (crop factor about 2x compared to full frame). Between the sensor size and the small distance between the lens mount and the sensor (no mirror), the cameras and lenses can be made startlingly small. Panasonic and Olympus make cameras and lenses for the system. There is a pretty good ecosystem of very high quality lenses at this point.

I use a Panasonic GX8. It is a metal frame, weather-sealed camera body. I have the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 and 35-100 f/2.8 and Panasonic Leica 100-400 f/4-6.3, all of which are weather-sealed, plus the Panasonic 7-14 f/4 and 20mm f/1.7 and Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 and 45mm f/2.8 macro. There are a few others I have and don't use very much, but every one of those lenses is very good to outstanding.

The "Panasonic Leica" lenses are made by Panasonic in partnership with Leica, using Leica designs and with Leica monitoring manufacture.

just a cheap D90. IMO lenses are more important than camera bodies.

these were all taken with my d90 and quality glass

http://www.fabspeed.com/blog/e...iano-in-monterey-ca/

D90. It came with a 18-55 kit lens which is pretty good as kit lenses go. I added a few prime lenses and use my 35mm 1.8 prime lens most often. Great for indoor shoots with moderate lighting and no flash and a good walk-around lens. At around $160, everyone with a DX format DSLR should have one.

I must admit though, since phone cameras have become so good, I find myself leaving the heavy DSLR at home more often than not.

Still happy with my Canon 5d Mark III.

I like Canon lenses better than Nikons but I think Nikon has the edge on bodies right now. I'm sure Canon will step up their game, the 5D Mark IV just wasn't much of an upgrade, at least not enough for me to upgrade. I'd consider a Sony as well, I think they're getting more lenses, I think they have the best software in their bodies.

Maybe Microsoft camera next?

https://petapixel.com/2017/06/...roves-image-quality/

I have a D90, which is at least two generations out of date, but it takes fine photos. The body is less important than the lenses, and they release new bodies so often that you can't keep up unless you buy a new camera every year.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:
I've been using Nikon since my mom let me have her old EM when I was in middle school.

These days I use a D800. I have some great lenses - Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 35mm f/1.4, Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro, and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8.

I know there is a lot of bias against third party lenses. I don't think it is justified anymore. At least the high-end third party lenses are excellent. I bought the Sigma macro because it tests as optically better than the closest comparable Nikon macro lenses (it's also more expensive). I was getting ready to buy the Nikon 70-200 when I came across a screaming deal on the Tamron, which tests as optically as good as the Nikon. I have been completely satisfied with both of them.

As much as I love that equipment, it is big and heavy and a pain in the ass to carry around.

I mostly use Micro Four Thirds equipment now. It is basically a mini-SLR (minus the "R" - no mirror or prism) with a slightly smaller than APS-C/DX sensor (crop factor about 2x compared to full frame). Between the sensor size and the small distance between the lens mount and the sensor (no mirror), the cameras and lenses can be made startlingly small. Panasonic and Olympus make cameras and lenses for the system. There is a pretty good ecosystem of very high quality lenses at this point.

I use a Panasonic GX8. It is a metal frame, weather-sealed camera body. I have the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 and 35-100 f/2.8 and Panasonic Leica 100-400 f/4-6.3, all of which are weather-sealed, plus the Panasonic 7-14 f/4 and 20mm f/1.7 and Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 and 45mm f/2.8 macro. There are a few others I have and don't use very much, but every one of those lenses is very good to outstanding.

The "Panasonic Leica" lenses are made by Panasonic in partnership with Leica, using Leica designs and with Leica monitoring manufacture.

The Lightweight Photographer is a fan of the Micro Four Thirds system. He makes some great images with it.

https://thelightweightphotographer.com/

My camera system is even more lightweight: Sony RX-10, with fixed (no sensor lint) Zeiss 24-200mm (equivalent) zoom. Max f/2.8 aperture over the whole zoom range. 1" sensor, 20K pixels. Only one accessory – a Schneider polarizing filter.

I am going to be in the market. FOlks say you need to buy a camera based on what you are using it for. Video/Photos. Not to hijack, but any recommendations for one that is good for both? I know you have to give up a little for a combo.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
The Lightweight Photographer is a fan of the Micro Four Thirds system. He makes some great images with it.

https://thelightweightphotographer.com/

My camera system is even more lightweight: Sony RX-10, with fixed (no sensor lint) Zeiss 24-200mm (equivalent) zoom. Max f/2.8 aperture over the whole zoom range. 1" sensor, 20K pixels. Only one accessory – a Schneider polarizing filter.

I hope you mean 20M pixels!

Cameras like that can offer excellent performance, I just have a hard time giving up the option of extreme wide angle, extreme telephoto, macro, and fast prime lenses. I use all of them pretty regularly.

quote:

Originally posted by Deqlyn:
I am going to be in the market. FOlks say you need to buy a camera based on what you are using it for. Video/Photos. Not to hijack, but any recommendations for one that is good for both? I know you have to give up a little for a combo.

Pretty much any modern DSLR or mirrorless camera should be able to take very good video. Many of them can easily take broadcast-quality video.

I mentioned that I like the Micro Four Thirds mirrorless camera system. The Panasonic GH series mirrorless cameras have been very popular for video work since the GH3. BBC's Top Gear used GH3 cameras mounted on drones for their aerial footage. The current GH5 model is used by a lot of filmmakers. The GH series cameras are also excellent still photo cameras.

Here's the thing, though. In general, autofocus is garbage for video. Most professional cinema lenses don't even HAVE autofocus.

The reason that it seems like autofocus works OK in camcorders is that camcorders have TINY sensors, which means there's a lot more depth of field, which makes autofocus errors much less apparent.

So, if you're using a "real" camera for video, you will either have to deal with not-great autofocus or you will have to focus manually.

There's a kind of middle ground, for subjects that aren't moving a lot, where you can set the camera to autofocus once at the beginning of the video and then just not focus again. It works fine as long as the distance between you and your subject doesn't really change.