Which DSLR is good

Untitled

A
Untitled

  • 0
  • 0
  • 42
Black Bull (2010)

A
Black Bull (2010)

  • 0
  • 0
  • 66
Liz-Lith.jpg

A
Liz-Lith.jpg

  • 4
  • 1
  • 137
Stray (2014)

H
Stray (2014)

  • 6
  • 2
  • 171
Time #2

Time #2

  • 1
  • 0
  • 100

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
181,871
Messages
2,516,476
Members
95,433
Latest member
MrClutch
Recent bookmarks
0

Cholentpot

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
5,647
Shooter
35mm
If I wasn't a Pentax guy (best optics and stabilization) I'd probably select Sony. Neither Nikon nor Canon both of which are doing better with products other than DSLR..

Ask a serious film maker...they'll say Sony or Panasonic.

Sony and Panasonic for video work. Sure.

For stills? Eh. Nope. Sony is not rock solid reliable, lenses are a fortune. Panasonic was made for video work. Pentax is for Pentax people.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
43,783
Location
Southern California
Shooter
Multi Format
I know that the Nikon people are going to burn me at the stake for this, and I have to say that manual Nikon SLRs are the greatest ever...buuuuuuut.

Canon knocked it out of the ballpark when they released the EOS system. The EF lenses to me feel mature, solid and dependable across the price range. My 40mm 2.8 feels just as nice as my 70-200 2.8L II. I can't say the same for Nikon lenses. The cheaper and older lenses for autofocus just don't feel complete. Autofocus can be slow and jittery, it's not a smooth experience.

Second point. Canons menu system is easy and straightforward.

Let me get some accelerator, a stake and some matches ... 🔥
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
41,512
Location
Delta, BC, Canada
Shooter
Multi Format
Just watch out for the Canon EF-S lenses - easy to confuse with EF lenses, but only compatible with the smaller sensor cameras.
I actually have a really handy 22-55mm EF lens that was designed for the short lived APS film cameras, but as they didn't have a different lens mount designed, it is compatible with the entire EF line, and actually gives decent results on 35mm film.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
7,531
Location
Scottsdale Az
Shooter
Multi Format
Which Sony, A or E? I bought Minolta film bodies and lens, then added Sony DSLRs, A700 and 900, later an A77II, which is not a true SLR, it uses a translucent mirror, 90% of the light is passed to the sensor, 10% is reflected to the EVFer. I have a few Sony lens which will only work on my Minolta 7, they are micromotor driven, but not my Minolta 9 or earlier bodies which use screw driven lens. Now the A line is dead. If I was not so heavly invested in Minolta/Sony lens I would move from Sony to Pentax. I have explored Sony E, just don't like them, too light, too small, and the adaptor to use A mount lens is not ideal. More or less fixed to Sony at the hip will get a used A99II and call it a day.
 

Cholentpot

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
5,647
Shooter
35mm
Just watch out for the Canon EF-S lenses - easy to confuse with EF lenses, but only compatible with the smaller sensor cameras.
I actually have a really handy 22-55mm EF lens that was designed for the short lived APS film cameras, but as they didn't have a different lens mount designed, it is compatible with the entire EF line, and actually gives decent results on 35mm film.

That's an oddball. Does it vignette much?
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
41,512
Location
Delta, BC, Canada
Shooter
Multi Format
That's an oddball. Does it vignette much?

Not at all - it is designed to cover the full frame.
Its corner performance isn't stellar, and it isn't very fast, but it is absolutely tiny and it covers a great range of fields of view.
 

Cholentpot

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
5,647
Shooter
35mm
Not at all - it is designed to cover the full frame.
Its corner performance isn't stellar, and it isn't very fast, but it is absolutely tiny and it covers a great range of fields of view.

22mm. Sounds like it would be a great blogging lens.
 

Moose22

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 1, 2021
Messages
988
Location
The Internet
Shooter
Medium Format
Look, an EF 50 1.8 made in 1992 is basically the same as one made in 2018. Can't say the same for Nikon.

I can. An AF50 1.8 in the D line is still available new: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-Nikkor-50mm-f%2F1.8D.html

It's substantially the same as the one I used in the early 90s and, like the Canon lens, was and is an excellent lens for the price.

You can make your point, and I get what you mean. This just isn't the lens to use to make it.
 

Cholentpot

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
5,647
Shooter
35mm

Moose22

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 1, 2021
Messages
988
Location
The Internet
Shooter
Medium Format
2137_AF_NIKKOR_50mm_f-1_8D.png
 

Moose22

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 1, 2021
Messages
988
Location
The Internet
Shooter
Medium Format
Didn't they take the aperture ring off the lens at some point?

Dude, we get your point.

THIS is not the lens to use to make it is all I'm saying.

Find an E (electronic diaphragm) or a G lens and it isn't backwards compatable. But Nikon only just announced the discontinuation of some D lenses, and the D line goes all the way back to early AF days.

Nikons are great. I love mine to death, but the mirrorless don't drive old lenses without internal focusing so they're a pretty clean break from the old lens technology. Likewise, the E lenses don't work with pre 2006 camera designs, so literally no film camera can use the electronic diaphragm, and the G and later lenses don't have an aperture ring. Plenty of issues that you point to if you're looking to have one lens to go from an early AF camera to a DSLR to a mirrorless with the adapter.

Their menus are also kludgy as all get out. Nikon is bad at software, always was.

But this flailing about feels too much like s fanboy who just wants to pick a fight. Nobody gives a shit about the Canon/Nikon holy wars anymore, except for people who want to fight because they want to fight.

And, frankly, picking on the AF50 as the inferior lens is kind of telling. Shows you don't know Nikon at all, you're just fanboying. It's the ultimate cheap SLR lens. Sharp, fast focus, and cheap as chips. $65 used, $110 new. If you want to prove your superiority, you don't go after the sweet, easy going kid that everyone loves. Go after the prickly one with obvious flaws.
 

markjwyatt

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
2,130
Location
Southern California
Shooter
Multi Format
Hi i m photographer and i want to buy new DSLR. What will be your opinion which brand is Beast i.e Nikon, Canon, Sony or any other

DSLR is not that good any more. Go mirrorless... [/opinion]
 

Cholentpot

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
5,647
Shooter
35mm
Dude, we get your point.

THIS is not the lens to use to make it is all I'm saying.

Find an E (electronic diaphragm) or a G lens and it isn't backwards compatable. But Nikon only just announced the discontinuation of some D lenses, and the D line goes all the way back to early AF days.

Nikons are great. I love mine to death, but the mirrorless don't drive old lenses without internal focusing so they're a pretty clean break from the old lens technology. Likewise, the E lenses don't work with pre 2006 camera designs, so literally no film camera can use the electronic diaphragm, and the G and later lenses don't have an aperture ring. Plenty of issues that you point to if you're looking to have one lens to go from an early AF camera to a DSLR to a mirrorless with the adapter.

Their menus are also kludgy as all get out. Nikon is bad at software, always was.

But this flailing about feels too much like s fanboy who just wants to pick a fight. Nobody gives a shit about the Canon/Nikon holy wars anymore, except for people who want to fight because they want to fight.

And, frankly, picking on the AF50 as the inferior lens is kind of telling. Shows you don't know Nikon at all, you're just fanboying. It's the ultimate cheap SLR lens. Sharp, fast focus, and cheap as chips. $65 used, $110 new. If you want to prove your superiority, you don't go after the sweet, easy going kid that everyone loves. Go after the prickly one with obvious flaws.

It's the only autofocus lens I use reliably honestly. I have a good amount and I generally go to the 50.

I'm not fanboying. Just stating my preference with digital. When it comes to manual film Nikon is king. Canon isn't even close.
 

Moose22

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 1, 2021
Messages
988
Location
The Internet
Shooter
Medium Format
It's the only autofocus lens I use reliably honestly. I have a good amount and I generally go to the 50.

I'm not fanboying. Just stating my preference with digital. When it comes to manual film Nikon is king. Canon isn't even close.

The 50s are just SOOOO good. Canons and Nikons are both the flagship cheap lenses.

I can find niggles and quirks in lot of lenses from both companies, but the 50s are awesome bang for the buck.

I think Canon didn't find their way for a short while between the rangefinder era and the automatic things era. The AE1 was a real landmark, and at the end of the film era Canon's tech was amazeballs. Nikon was quite conservative in comparison -- like I said, bad at software. So my view of Canon is all over the map, but never bad. They have continued to be better at software. And support... call Canon for tech help and they'll help you. With anything. Period.

And my buddies rig with the 300mm lens (I think... Big grey bastard. I don't know Canon gear specifics other than when he hands me his to look at) is perfect for him. Another friend shoots stuff like olympic skiiers with Canon and mentored my automotive-shooting friend all the way back to the mid 00s, so they are thick as thieves with the Canon ecosystem. It works so well for their uses.

I shot a Sony and the eye detect puts my camera's to shame. Someone trying to do fashion or environmental portraits quickly in odd light would consider that a plus. Mine will pick an eye and focus on the eyebrow sometimes -- so dumb. Doing face detect it'll pick the face of a singer and focus on the microphone. But I use old lenses on the FTZ for much of that and don't use autofocus so it doesn't matter to me. The focus peaking of the Mirrorless really DOES as it helps me visualize DoF and precise focus even when in crazy mixed light.

But mirrorless Nikon -- the lenses are spectacular. I'm sure others are too, but I work quickly and get impossible shots with the Z -- like handheld people lit by candles way after sunset.
MitchsVigil-DSC_0679-4024-x-6048-1200px.jpg



Modern digitals are so good it's like cheating.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
7,531
Location
Scottsdale Az
Shooter
Multi Format
The down side to mirrorless, start with battery drain, even my Sony A77II with EVFer has 1/2 the battery life of my A900. Second, it takes a second for the viewfinder to wake up when put to your eye, the back screen live is great in some circumstances, here in the bright light of the Southwest useless much of the year. Then, I will say that Nikon has what I think is the best EVF, I just don't care for an EVFer. Last as I posted earlier, the Sony E bodies, A7 and 9, never seen a 1, are too light for my taste. As one size does not fit all, find what fits your needs and preferences.
 

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,905
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Shooter
35mm
Sony and Panasonic for video work. Sure.

For stills? Eh. Nope. Sony is not rock solid reliable, lenses are a fortune. Panasonic was made for video work. Pentax is for Pentax people.

Nikon is killing its own dslr business. Never was a winner with video. They're toast.

Canon has been a video winner for years and remains so...all sorts of technical and user-oriented advancements. Nikon has been whupped in the video segment for years.

Pentax isn't serious about video, nor is Nikon. But Pentax handles a lot better than Nikon or Canon and costs far less. And of course, it has the edge optically.
 

juan

Subscriber
Joined
May 7, 2003
Messages
2,518
Location
St. Simons I
Shooter
Multi Format
Now the comments on Nikons are interesting. I have 8-9 legacy lenses, some AI and some converted, that all work just fine with my D-750. What non-compatibility issues have you other folks seen?
 

Cholentpot

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
5,647
Shooter
35mm
Now the comments on Nikons are interesting. I have 8-9 legacy lenses, some AI and some converted, that all work just fine with my D-750. What non-compatibility issues have you other folks seen?

When someone is just starting out the F mount can be very confusing. Canon is easier. If it's FD it don't work. If it's EF it works.

Why wouldNikon bodies work with Canon EF lenses?

Hardee har.
 

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,905
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Shooter
35mm
When someone is just starting out the F mount can be very confusing. Canon is easier. If it's FD it don't work. If it's EF it works.



Hardee har.

If you don't have photographer friends you're stuck with Internet gossip (like this thread).

If you do have photographer friends, ask them what they'd buy.

Don't pay attention to people who have lots of lenses. Look at the photographs they've printed.

There's no good reason to buy a DSLR if you're not going to make prints, one way or another.

If you have a good film camera, don't use lack of a dslr as some kind of weird alibi.

Scan your favorite film. Even the top level Epson scanner is cheap by comparison to dslrs and it'll be far more useful in the long run.

Make inkjet prints from your favorite (or most puzzling) scans (files). That way ;you'll see why you've been making photographs. Most film photographers do almost nothing with them. Holidays, family, vacation. Nothing more. Or they pretend snaps of strangers are "art."

Instead of buying a dslr (I love mine), commit seriously to photography. That will probably lead you to some form of digital camera....eventually. But figure out what you think you're doing by snapping that shutter.

Hardly anybody on Photrio talks about WHY they're making their photographs, and fewer still talk about what they INTEND TO DO by making photographs.

Don't get trapped in camera-accumulation. Review your existing photos. You made them (probably carelessly, as most of us tend to do). Stop making photos until you have some kind of idea about what/why.
 
  • jtk
  • jtk
  • Deleted

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,905
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Shooter
35mm
Dude, we get your point.

THIS is not the lens to use to make it is all I'm saying.

Find an E (electronic diaphragm) or a G lens and it isn't backwards compatable. But Nikon only just announced the discontinuation of some D lenses, and the D line goes all the way back to early AF days.

Nikons are great. I love mine to death, but the mirrorless don't drive old lenses without internal focusing so they're a pretty clean break from the old lens technology. Likewise, the E lenses don't work with pre 2006 camera designs, so literally no film camera can use the electronic diaphragm, and the G and later lenses don't have an aperture ring. Plenty of issues that you point to if you're looking to have one lens to go from an early AF camera to a DSLR to a mirrorless with the adapter.

Their menus are also kludgy as all get out. Nikon is bad at software, always was.

But this flailing about feels too much like s fanboy who just wants to pick a fight. Nobody gives a shit about the Canon/Nikon holy wars anymore, except for people who want to fight because they want to fight.

And, frankly, picking on the AF50 as the inferior lens is kind of telling. Shows you don't know Nikon at all, you're just fanboying. It's the ultimate cheap SLR lens. Sharp, fast focus, and cheap as chips. $65 used, $110 new. If you want to prove your superiority, you don't go after the sweet, easy going kid that everyone loves. Go after the prickly one with obvious flaws.

Better yet, get APSC rather than full frame. APSC cameras are far smaller and far lighter than full frame as well as FAR less expensive . But if you enjoy the advertisements and fanboy hype, and have money to burn, that's up to you and your rabbi (or whoever).

I'd bet you can't distinguish APSC files from full frame files except in fantasy enlargements or in wild crops. In other words, if you print or view @ 13X19 you won't see any difference.
 

Cholentpot

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
5,647
Shooter
35mm
If you don't have photographer friends you're stuck with Internet gossip (like this thread).

If you do have photographer friends, ask them what they'd buy.

Don't pay attention to people who have lots of lenses. Look at the photographs they've printed.

There's no good reason to buy a DSLR if you're not going to make prints, one way or another.

If you have a good film camera, don't use lack of a dslr as some kind of weird alibi.

Scan your favorite film. Even the top level Epson scanner is cheap by comparison to dslrs and it'll be far more useful in the long run.

Make inkjet prints from your favorite (or most puzzling) scans (files). That way ;you'll see why you've been making photographs. Most film photographers do almost nothing with them. Holidays, family, vacation. Nothing more. Or they pretend snaps of strangers are "art."

Instead of buying a dslr (I love mine), commit seriously to photography. That will probably lead you to some form of digital camera....eventually. But figure out what you think you're doing by snapping that shutter.

Hardly anybody on Photrio talks about WHY they're making their photographs, and fewer still talk about what they INTEND TO DO by making photographs.

Don't get trapped in camera-accumulation. Review your existing photos. You made them (probably carelessly, as most of us tend to do). Stop making photos until you have some kind of idea about what/why.

I like pushing the shutter and not having it cost money.

30 fps WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
 

Cholentpot

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
5,647
Shooter
35mm
Better yet, get APSC rather than full frame. APSC cameras are far smaller and far lighter than full frame as well as FAR less expensive . But if you enjoy the advertisements and fanboy hype, and have money to burn, that's up to you and your rabbi (or whoever).

I'd bet you can't distinguish APSC files from full frame files except in fantasy enlargements or in wild crops. In other words, if you print or view @ 13X19 you won't see any difference.

You get better low-light performance and depth of field from full frame.

For the average user APS-C is more than enough. For work though the full frame really does help. All my film is scanned with a Canon 550D. It does fine for that. When I do paid work I'm lugging along the 5D4 and the 6D for backup. It's not overkill, it's needed. I wouldn't want to lug a 5D4 up a mountain with a 70-200. But with a 35mm or a 50? Not that heavy. My 35mm SLRs are heavier than the full frame DSLR.

And you can get a used full frame fairly modern DSLR for pretty good money these days. Nikon D610 isn't all that much anymore. Canon 5DIII or 6D, pretty good deals to be had. So OP is asking which camera to get. Find a used Nikon D610 or a Canon 6D and you'll be pretty well off.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom