Best Digital Camera Under $5K?

[HoboSyke]

If you took some time to know anything about me, you would know that I am a firm believer in the photographer making the picture and not the camera. I have complimented users that shoot great pictures with their camera phones and will continue to recognize photographers and not the cameras themselves.

True words ! :thumbup:

 

[jadin]

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning it seems. How about refraining from this type of comment. Just think back to kindergarden when they said, "If you don't have anything nice to say, shut your lip!"

Hmm, I see where you got that, but I just wanted to say I didn't take it as an offensive comment. I thought he was commenting on his chosen style / genre of photography, rather than the quality.

He even gave good advice for any photographer, getting higher-quality glass is a much better long term investment, one that can even yeild higher-quality photographs for the same amount of money spent.

Just my two bits.

 

[hobbes28]

Hmm, I see where you got that, but I just wanted to say I didn't take it as an offensive comment. I thought he was commenting on his chosen style / genre of photography, rather than the quality.

He even gave good advice for any photographer, getting higher-quality glass is a much better long term investment, one that can even yeild higher-quality photographs for the same amount of money spent.

Just my two bits.

Word. I was just letting him know how what he said could be easily misunderstood. IMO, if you are a firm believer in glass as an investment, you should stand behind that fact first, not after seeing a person's work. I mean, do you have to be a portrait photographer to purchase the 5D?

 

[Jeff/fotog]

I picked the $5K number because it was much lower than some of the megabucks digital backs I have seen around.

The pics on my site are very small files of big images, due to the cost of server storage and trying to be respectful of download times for users. Actual images are often 16 x 20 with very long scales.

Having been used to working with 4 x 5 negatives in a darkroom with good glass and disciplined technique, I find that the Sonys are great in relatively small scale. What I guess I am wondering is if there is a digital camera out there that will give me the basic data I need to work with, in comparison to old Tri-X 4x5 when I start playing with it on the computer?

Does that help? I apologize for the confusion.

Thanks in advance.

www.jefferyraymond.com

 

[Mike Jordan]

Word. I was just letting him know how what he said could be easily misunderstood. IMO, if you are a firm believer in glass as an investment, you should stand behind that fact first, not after seeing a person's work. I mean, do you have to be a portrait photographer to purchase the 5D?

You sure have a "funny" way of letting people know that they could be mis-understood. In fact, I think the way you worded your comment to Doc was a lot more offensive than what he said that you said could have been mis-understood. But I might have mis-understood what you meant.

Mike

 

[Marctwo]

So is there any difference in image quality between the full frame canons and the 350d/20d? The full frames have a higher pixel count but that's just inkeeping with the same pixel density on a larger area, right? And 12MP/8MP doesn't make a whole lot of difference in real terms.

Are the differences just body/build quality, firmware and focal length?

 

[hobbes28]

You sure have a "funny" way of letting people know that they could be mis-understood. In fact, I think the way you worded your comment to Doc was a lot more offensive than what he said that you said could have been mis-understood. But I might have mis-understood what you meant.

Mike

DocFrankenstein isn't known for listening if you just lay it out there for him.

Also, I'm a landscape and portrait photographer and I knew what he was getting at but took offense to the way he worded it and it looks like Jeff took some as well. Landscape photography usually doesn't pay that well so it seems like a waste to spend that much money on a camera with little to no turn around. What some people forget to consider is that for a lot of landscape scenes require a higher MP or better sensor as well as the better glass because there is typically a lot more detail in the shots taken.

 

[Jeff/fotog]

I make pictures because I like to make them; there is nothing about my work that has anything to do with 'making money.' In fact, in most cases I don't offer my prints for sale.

I'm a purist: I make the images because they are there and get them to the point where they are at least, "pretty good." So, there is no money motivation here at all.

But good equipment costs money and I'm just looking to figure out the best camera to use for my application of obtaining a high quality original image and the ability to have enough data to manipulate in my computer (new darkroom!) and looking for feedback.

Hope this helps.

www.jefferyraymond.com

 

[ksmattfish]

You could get a $1000 range DSLR, the lenses, and accessories you'll need, and a medium and large format film scanner. No matter how much you spend today you aren't going to get what you can get from medium format or 4x5 film. Probably tomorrow, but not today.

I love my DSLR for portraits, and hand held photography, but if I'm in the mood for some serious landscape photography it's really hard to beat a big piece of film on a tripod.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

So is there any difference in image quality between the full frame canons and the 350d/20d? The full frames have a higher pixel count but that's just inkeeping with the same pixel density on a larger area, right? And 12MP/8MP doesn't make a whole lot of difference in real terms.

Are the differences just body/build quality, firmware and focal length?

Well... higher ISO is easier to implement... 3200 looks incredibly clean on FF 5D

You also get ISO 50 and ISO 6400 I think... which adds to the flashwork.

Also you get "more information" on the full frame sensor. The pixels are cleaner and you can upsize/interpolate better.

And you get that shallow DOF of full frame.

If you took some time to know anything about me

I'm sure I will. As one ancient guy said: "I think it's a start of a beautiful friendship"

 

[hobbes28]

I'm sure I will. As one ancient guy said: "I think it's a start of a beautiful friendship"

Are you flirting with me? :mrgreen:

 

[amosnews]

Jeff. The photography on your site rocks. Now my opinion on "best digital cameral under $5 grand". I say get a Nikon D100 (about $1,800 - being phased out, I understand), a Nikon D90 (around $1,400), or D70 (around $900) and save your money for beer. I have used each a lot and own one of them - also have used other good models from Cannon, but have a fondness for Nikon. If anyone tells you these digitals are not pro, tell them to jump in a lake. I make a ton of money shooting for magazines and newspapers and have won muchas awards in both. The great and famed photographer, Tim Sullivan, uses one of these models as well (I mention him because your photography reminds me of his). In Sum: Use your brain and heart, shoot great, make money, and buy beer. I apologize if I have offended anyone who has spent too much on their cameras.

 

[jadin]

I apologize if I have offended anyone who has spent too much on their cameras.

I wasn't offended until this sentence...

While your camera can be used by pro's it doesn't mean it has everything you need. For example all the camera's you listed are only able to go down to 200 ISO. Something I consider very important to be able to get as low as possible. That's just one detail. There are hundreds if not thousands of subtle differences between camera's. All of which play a role in the quality of a camera. There's a reason why some camera's are over $5k and others aren't even $1k.

I could just as easily say you're trying to rationalize your inability to buy the 'best'. But I won't stoop to that level.

 

[jstuedle]

I am another that is quite pleased with my D1X. Great color, good shadow and highlight detail, and relatively low noise. Having sold numerous 24" X 36" prints from images created with this camera, I can only say I am very, very happy with the Nikon. I also lust for the D2X. It's reviews put it's output close to or above that of film. It's color and detail are truly stunning. I have rented a D2X for a couple of jobs and until I tell the client different, they think I am shooting medium format. I realize brand is a matter of personal preference, but the big advantage I find with the Pro-D series is being able to use my older prime M.F. lenses. Just about any lens with the Nikon "F" mount made since 1959 can be made to work and meter with the D1 and 2 series. Many Nikkor manual focus lenses are regarded to be some of the best and sharpest lenses ever produced. Today they can be had for very reasonable prices. I use a mint 400 f/3.5 often that was purchased for $700 last year and a 58mm f/1.2 I have had for many years. This availability is a large reason for me to stay with the D1 and D2 series camera. Also available are tilt and shift lenses, very long telephotos, microscope adapters, very fast primes and other accessories too numerous to mention that have been out of production for years. The ruggedness of the D series is legend. A newspaper photog friend is quoted as saying "I will beat to death with my D1 the guy who attempts to steal it from me, and use it to photograph the body for the morning edition".

BTW, when did Nikon come out with a D90?

 

[jadin]

The ruggedness of the D series is legend. A newspaper photog friend is quoted as saying "I will beat to death with my D1 the guy who attempts to steal it from me, and use it to photograph the body for the morning edition".

Hey! That guy literaly stole my line. I have a monfroto monopod I use that weighs a grip by itself. Attached to the D1X it's my beat-down stick. There's no surviving this badass combo. Jerk stole my line....