Which DSLR is good

[Moose22]

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.

I shot a D70 for a long time and a D7100 for several years before I went mirrorless.

I chose my current camera on feature set and because I decided mirrorless, not dslr, would be the future of cameras. Never once did I worry about APSC or full frame... the quality of this generation of sensors is remarkable.

I did start doing more landscape work, and full frame helps me because I get a broader view from my 20mm, but before that it was mostly street and travel that I was using the cameras for. Something I threw in my bag before I got on an airplane. and that I didn't want to be too heavy or so expensive it really hurt if it got damaged.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use both full frame and cropped sensor cameras, when printing from a full frame sensor even 24MP provides ample detail, when the end image will a digital file for my wife's facebook page, even a low MP count cropped sensor such my old Sony A700 or even Pentax K2000 does as well. I also use a cropped senor when shooting wildlife with a long lens. My Sony A77II at 24Mp is about the same as my full frame A900 around 25MP, when I crop an image taken with say a 300 I lose about 1/2 the MP of the full frame A900 so a print from the A77II has more detail.

 

[Moose22]

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

+1

My use cases for the current camera was originally shooting bands on stage. The low light performance was a big deal to me. The lockdowns hit not long after and I was doing night photography and timelapse, and all kinds of wacky crap.

My old work was mostly daylight, but sometimes I'd do night stuff. Usually when I was bored after work and taking a walk. THAT is all way easier now.

But it's all use cases. Daylight street photography, the small sensor is just fine.

 

[Cholentpot]

+1

My use cases for the current camera was originally shooting bands on stage. The low light performance was a big deal to me. The lockdowns hit not long after and I was doing night photography and timelapse, and all kinds of wacky crap.

My old work was mostly daylight, but sometimes I'd do night stuff. Usually when I was bored after work and taking a walk. THAT is all way easier now.

But it's all use cases. Daylight street photography, the small sensor is just fine.

I also like getting every mm possible out of my wide lenses.

 

[Moose22]

I've only just gotten into wide in the last couple of years. I am really enjoying it.

Before my "wide" on a 35mm was 35mm, and on apsc I'd shoot as wide as 18, but that crops like a 24mm. Wide, but not SUPER wide. I have a 20mm for the digitals, and an 18 for the film nikons, and just got a 15mm LTM for my leicas.

I didn't care about that before, but now that I do... well, I'm just enjoying the different perspective it brings. That 20 is awesomesauce. This was my pandemic era New Year's photo:

cropped to print on a standard size, but impossible resolution and dynamic range.

 

[jtk]

Cholent Pot , you're a bit confused. APSC is not a film

My APSC digital Pentax wears a 20-40 or a 55-300 . I'm suggesting APSC because it weighs a lot less than the "full frame" equivalent, is inherently optically better than full frame zooms ( fewer elements), and autofocuses faster (fwiw) because shorter and, of course, cost a lot less than the seriously bulky full frame Nikons and Canons (and as we know Nikon is getting out of the DSLR business).

I don't know who would want a full frame DSLR.

There is no such thing as "the average user".

 

[jtk]

Here's mine:

K-70 | RICOH IMAGING

An all-weather digital SLR camera expands the boundaries of photo shooting, with new opportunities and discoveries in scenic photography

www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp

 

[MattKing]

Cholent Pot , you're a bit confused. APSC is not a film

My APSC digital Pentax wears a 20-40 or a 55-300 . I'm suggesting APSC because it weighs a lot less than the "full frame" equivalent, is inherently optically better than full frame zooms ( fewer elements), and autofocuses faster (fwiw) because shorter and, of course, cost a lot less than the seriously bulky full frame Nikons and Canons (and as we know Nikon is getting out of the DSLR business).

I don't know who would want a full frame DSLR.

There is no such thing as "the average user".

APS - C (for classic) film format - now discontinued of course:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System
I have a very handy Canon 22-55mm lens that was designed for the Canon APS-C SLR film cameras, but actually works reasonably well (for what is essentially an APS-C film kit lens) on full frame 35mm film cameras. Small, light and a really nice range of fields of view. Not stellar in performance at the corners, but still good overall.

 

[Paul Howell]

As noted when Kodak came out it's line of digital cameras it based the size if sensors on film format sizes that were current at the time. Full frame 35mm sensor, APS-C size sensor. Camera that used the APS system could be set to use 3 different formats on the same roll, APS-C, APS-H was a bit larger then panorama with was not used in the early digital world followed by the largest MF 646 size. Sigma did offer a APS-H size for a while, now off the market as they offer a full frame sensor in L mount. Sometimes an APS-C sensor is called a cropped sensor.























ktPThe srelaldsorlich pa azi l 35bitS

 

[Cholentpot]

Cholent Pot , you're a bit confused. APSC is not a film

My APSC digital Pentax wears a 20-40 or a 55-300 . I'm suggesting APSC because it weighs a lot less than the "full frame" equivalent, is inherently optically better than full frame zooms ( fewer elements), and autofocuses faster (fwiw) because shorter and, of course, cost a lot less than the seriously bulky full frame Nikons and Canons (and as we know Nikon is getting out of the DSLR business).

I don't know who would want a full frame DSLR.

There is no such thing as "the average user".

My entire in real life circle of photographers use full frame for work if they're with Nikon or Canon. One or two use Fujifilm cameras. For video work anything goes. From Super 16 to full frame. The 6D isn't much larger than the 7D line. Anything with a mirror in it is going to be bulky. Take the mirror out and the cameras can get quite small.

 

[jtk]

My entire in real life circle of photographers use full frame for work if they're with Nikon or Canon. One or two use Fujifilm cameras. For video work anything goes. From Super 16 to full frame. The 6D isn't much larger than the 7D line. Anything with a mirror in it is going to be bulky. Take the mirror out and the cameras can get quite small.

In other words, don't buy a camera with a mirror box rather than real prism (Pentax). Also, don't buy any camera without an articulated viewfinder (Pentax). Also, don't buy one that isn't seriously waterproof (Pentax)

It doesn't matter what someone's "real life circle of photographers" use if money means nothing to them and if they don't prioritize articulated viewfinders and if they don't personally make prints.

Don't buy anybody's used "full frame" dslr because "used" means somebody's dumping it.

 

[Cholentpot]

In other words, don't buy a camera with a mirror box rather than real prism (Pentax). Also, don't buy any camera without an articulated viewfinder (Pentax). Also, don't buy one that isn't seriously waterproof (Pentax)

It doesn't matter what someone's "real life circle of photographers" use if money means nothing to them and if they don't prioritize articulated viewfinders and if they don't personally make prints.

Don't buy anybody's used "full frame" dslr because "used" means somebody's dumping it.

Don't don't don't.

Funny I don't see any Pentax DSLRs on the sidelines or at press conferences. I do see lots of big white lenses.

 

[Paul Howell]

Pentax did not the resources to really compete in the digital world, were very late with a full frame DSLR, still does make pro level body. Same can be said for Olympus.

 

[Cholentpot]

Pentax did not the resources to really compete in the digital world, were very late with a full frame DSLR, still does make pro level body. Same can be said for Olympus.

Olympus went with the m43 and stuck with it. The sensor size reached its limitations a little while back.

 

[Paul Howell]

Cropped sensors are likely to reach the same point as the M3/4 soon, it is going to be really hard to make smaller and smaller pixels, there is more room on full frame sensors. Then again when do you reach the law of diminished returns, when more pixels do not make for better image.

 

[Cholentpot]

Cropped sensors are likely to reach the same point as the M3/4 soon, it is going to be really hard to make smaller and smaller pixels, there is more room on full frame sensors. Then again when do you reach the law of diminished returns, when more pixels do not make for better image.

20.2mp vs the 30mp that I'm at now really didn't make a difference in IQ. I do see the difference when cropping and doing things like large group photos.

 

[jtk]

20.2mp vs the 30mp that I'm at now really didn't make a difference in IQ. I do see the difference when cropping and doing things like large group photos.

If your income derives from "large group photos" I'm sure ff makes more sense than cropped, but if you're into backpacking, art, individual portraits, journalism, books etc it doesn't.

 

[jtk]

Pentax did not the resources to really compete in the digital world, were very late with a full frame DSLR, still does make pro level body. Same can be said for Olympus.

"really compete" doesn't equate to being biggest. The "digital world" includes more superb cameras than Nikon and Canon. There is no reason, beyond bragging, for "the average photographer" (imagined by CP) to bother with ff.

Don't don't don't.

Funny I don't see any Pentax DSLRs on the sidelines or at press conferences. I do see lots of big white lenses.

Why would you expect to see anything other than Canon/Nikon at press conferences? Only a week or two ago somebody here was touting Graflex at press conferences.

I don't think the OT said he did press photos or big group pics (what we see in press today is mostly done with phones). Also, CP's claims about what "he sees" raise questions.

CP's recent promotion of used dslrs is again a laugh. Who wants to buy a former press photographer's used dslr ? Seriously?

 

[jtk]

Pentax did not the resources to really compete in the digital world, were very late with a full frame DSLR, still does make pro level body. Same can be said for Olympus.

APS - C (for classic) film format - now discontinued of course:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System
I have a very handy Canon 22-55mm lens that was designed for the Canon APS-C SLR film cameras, but actually works reasonably well (for what is essentially an APS-C film kit lens) on full frame 35mm film cameras. Small, light and a really nice range of fields of view. Not stellar in performance at the corners, but still good overall.

Kodak killed that format and helped (with its cursed "disc" ) to kill many minilabs. I read Kodak's internal printed advance admission about how terrible disc would be print-wise, but how much money the minilabs would make. Purchase of disc machinery broke the bank for many of them.

The OT asked about a dslr, not a film camera...

I knew somebody would be preoccupied about APS-C vs APSC. FWIW Pentax's APS-C film camera was excellent (rugged, excellent zoom, genuinely waterproof...think about their IQ Zooms), but of course Pentax has always been better than Kodak at camera design.

 

[runswithsizzers]

In other words, don't buy a camera with a mirror box rather than real prism (Pentax). Also, don't buy any camera without an articulated viewfinder (Pentax). Also, don't buy one that isn't seriously waterproof (Pentax)

It doesn't matter what someone's "real life circle of photographers" use if money means nothing to them and if they don't prioritize articulated viewfinders and if they don't personally make prints.

Don't buy anybody's used "full frame" dslr because "used" means somebody's dumping it.

The terminology can be a little confusing. Every SLR/DSLR has a mirror box which refers to the cage-like part that holds the mirror. Because the mirror needs a certain amount of room to operate, the mirror box must be a certain minimum size - which is one reason DSLR cameras are bigger than mirrorless cameras..

Not to be confused with pentamirror prisms where the pentaprism is made from an assembly of mirrors rather than a solid chunk of glass. The pentamirror prisms are lighter and usually cheaper than solid glass prisms, and the solid pentaprisms are usually bigger and brighter.

Pentax actually used both. My Pentax K-x had a pentamirror, and the view was very good. But not as big and bright as the view through the solid pentaprism on my K-3. I should probably mention, the K-3 also weighed almost 40% more than the K-x (for several reasons).

Your last comment reminds me of my grandfather. He worked many jobs over his lifetime, including owning a lawn mower shop. Ask him about used lawn mowers and always said, 'a used mower is just buying someone else's problems.' Having said that - except for the Pentax K-x - all of the dozen or so cameras I've owned I bought as used, and most of them served me well.

It is a pity that current Pentax digital cameras are not better known. They tend to be good solid cameras with very good ergonomics, and many of their lenses are excellent and affordable.

 

[Cholentpot]

If your income derives from "large group photos" I'm sure ff makes more sense than cropped, but if you're into backpacking, art, individual portraits, journalism, books etc it doesn't.

"really compete" doesn't equate to being biggest. The "digital world" includes more superb cameras than Nikon and Canon. There is no reason, beyond bragging, for "the average photographer" (imagined by CP) to bother with ff.




Why would you expect to see anything other than Canon/Nikon at press conferences? Only a week or two ago somebody here was touting Graflex at press conferences.

I don't think the OT said he did press photos or big group pics (what we see in press today is mostly done with phones). Also, CP's claims about what "he sees" raise questions.

CP's recent promotion of used dslrs is again a laugh. Who wants to buy a former press photographer's used dslr ? Seriously?

Yep. Group photos, family shoots and the like. I have done group shots on my Crown Graphic alongside my DSLR.

 

[Paul Howell]

As I've posted there are just so many really good cameras, it is hard to make a bad choice. In terms of used, all of my DSLRs I've bought used, none have had any issues what so ever, not to say that any given by on any given day will come with issues. Back to OP, what is your budget?