Entry Level or Mid Level?

[Katier]

Yes, I was considering the 40D, but looking at specs. it doesn’t seem a lot better than the D90 or K20D, besides for 6.5fps. I’ll probably only need 3fps, though that is the bottom line for me.
Also, the K20D is the same price as it body only, but buy the 40D kit lens and the price goes up to $1600. (I’m in Australia&#8230 And those aren’t even IS lenses. Whereas if you buy a K20D, you get, while not fantastic, still in built IS. And with a twin Sigma kit, it only costs $1300.
Of course, the D90 is the same price as the 40D, roughly, so… Unsure about that factor, too.
So, advanced cameras have more shutter life? Anyone know which of the cameras can last the longest?
I’m also curious: exactly what ‘more and more advanced’ features include on a higher level DSLR?

Life wise I doubt there's anything to choose between the 3 cameras. I don't know quoted figures but I am sure they're all comparable.

The main things for 'more advanced' pro level kit are Full Frame, higher megapixels and probably more durable build . To get the most out of these of course requires pro glass. You also of course get things like faster 'motor' drive, better live view etc. but some of those are features seen on non-pro kit.

 

[manaheim]

There are about a gazillion "what camera should I buy" posts on this forum. I'm absolutely not trying to be a punk, but you should try to search on the phrase "What camera should i buy" and read some of those threads. There's a lot of excellent information.

In brief, though, what camera you buy has a lot to do with budget.

Within reason, any decent $500+ body is going to last you plenty long just so long as you don't bang it around. Some of the more expensive bodies are certainly more rugged and weatherproof. Whatever good the camera does now, it will also do many months (or years) from now as long as the electronics and everything hold up. (and you don't exceed shutter actuations, but that's unlikely)

In the Nikon line, I don't advise going any lower than a D90... unless you can't afford one. Then I suggest a used D80, and maybe even consider a used D70S in good condition. Avoid the D60s and D40s if you can. They have a lot of limitations and you'll wind up spending more on your lenses because they can only use lenses with internal focus motors (thus making up much of the cost "savings").

 

[Mr. Murmeli]

Now that i've used my camera for a while i know i'd appreciate two things in the canon 40D: magnesium body and most of all the three fully programmable settings in the main dial -thing. But good luck with your choice and whatever you pick you probably won't regret it since those are all very good cameras .

 

[usayit]

Prove this.

Canon 40D. Check that out. It's the mid level Canon and one hell of a deal. You can get them for $600 used. 6.5 FPS, better controls, and other features.

As you know, I shoot with Canon but I am a fan of Pentax.... Proving one or the other is pointless BUT the post you responded to did say "at least as good as the competition". Meaning they do compete and there is no clear winner. I know "techo specs" are equally taken with a grain of salt but dxomark.com actually edges out the K20D ahead of the 40D with more mpixels to boot. Price wise the 40D competes directly with the K20D if slightly cheaper. If you throw in the added value from 50 years of backwards lens compatibility to the K20D Pentax (stabilized too!) , then there is even more to like about that Pentax.

I have access to almost any brand of camera available... I much prefer my 1dMarkII controls over the K20D but there are TONS of people (Nikon shooters mainly) that will say other wise (two button/action takes a bit of getting used to). Again... just preferences and I won't invalidate other's opinions.

I know its hard to see past the camera you own.... I tend to be biased as well... But Katier at the very least wrote a paragraph or two as to why he/she has such an opinion. I'd like to know why you give the edge out to 40D?

 

[FrankLamont]

The problem with Canon is that, out of its 277 or so lenses, only 30 of them have IS.

Unsure about Nikon.

Sony... good, but rather expensive, and doesn't, apparently, handle high ISO well. But has the whole Minolta lens range open...

Olympus... the only one I'd consider is the new E620. 12mp, 7pt, swivel LCD, 3.5(?)fps... seems pretty good. I mean, the swivel LCD is just a bonus, but the rest seems still quite good. I'll have to check it out when it comes out. And I don't know much about the Four Thirds lens range. Any differences, bad things about it?

Pentax, the IS isn't great. That's somewhat of a problem.

 

[inTempus]

The problem with Canon is that, out of its 277 or so lenses, only 30 of them have IS.

If IS is a major factor for you, get a Sony or Pentax. I've not found IS to be of much use except in my 70-200, where I use it all the time.

It would be nice if Canon had sensor base IS vs. lens based... and rumor has it that their next gen of bodies might have it. But in practical application, at least for me, I've not had a problem working without it.

 

[TheOtherBob]

The problem with Canon is that, out of its 277 or so lenses, only 30 of them have IS.

Yeah, but three things about that:

1. They're the 30 (or so) lenses that you'd actually buy (I mean, the Tilt-Shift lenses don't have IS, but...). Moreover, if you want an IS lens, they definitely have one in whatever focal length you need.

2. They're the 30 lenses that really need IS -- wide angles don't benefit from it nearly as much as telephotos.

3. I'm not a technician, but I understand (purely from reading the internets) that in-lens IS is better than in-camera. (If I'm wrong on that, I'm sure someone will correct me.)

So my two cents: First, I don't think you can draw a line between entry level and mid level. Cameras have features and capabilities -- some have more, some have less, and there's really no good place to draw a line between them. So I'd look for a camera that does what you want to do in the price range you're looking to pay, rather than looking for one that falls into a defined category.

Beyond that, though, it sounds like you want a camera that feels like it will last. I don't recommend the Rebel series, in that case -- I always thought they felt plasticy. The 40D feels must more solid to me, and feels like it would last for years. If there's a camera store near you (and you haven't already done this), you really should try holding them all, to see what feels right to you. Best of luck!

 

[FrankLamont]

3. I'm not a technician, but I understand (purely from reading the internets) that in-lens IS is better than in-camera. (If I'm wrong on that, I'm sure someone will correct me.)

That's what Canon and Nikon say, anyway. It's true, but only by a bit.

I've looked, but can't seem to find: what particular lenses do Canon offer in IS?

And if you know for Nikon as well...?

Thanks.

I've held both, by the way. You know what they felt like? Cameras. Uh-huh.

 

[usayit]

The problem with Canon is that, out of its 277 or so lenses, only 30 of them have IS.

That shouldn't be a problem unless your ultimate goal is to collect and not shoot.

 

[Dao]

I really do not see why IS is so important. Personally, a "fast" and "sharp" lens is more important to me.

For example, if 70-200mm F/2.8 lens cost the same as 70-200mm F/4 IS lens, I will rather buy the 70-200mm F/2.8.

Don't get me wrong, it is a nice feature to have, but faster lens is better.

I only have one lens that has IS, and that is a telephoto lens. All the rest of the lenses do not have IS nor do I need IS on them.

If they do make a 50mm f/1.8 lens with IS and cost more, I would rather buy the one without. If Tamron make an 17-50mm F/2.8 lens has VC (Tamron version of IS) and cost more, I would rather buy the one without and save some money.

 

[TheOtherBob]

I've looked, but can't seem to find: what particular lenses do Canon offer in IS?

Any that have IS in the name -- Canon's website has a complete list of everything that offer. (If the Australian version doesn't have the list, try the U.S. one -- I know it does.)

And if you know for Nikon as well...?

Same deal -- except they use "VR" (vibration reduction?) in their lens names to signify an IS lens. www.nikonusa.com has the lens lineup.

I've held both, by the way. You know what they felt like? Cameras. Uh-huh.

:er:

 

[Montana]

Honestly, if I was starting with a totally clean slate (not married to any brand yet), I would strongly consider the Canon 40D. I am not saying this because I own one, but because of the features/build/price. If you want the most camera for your dollar, its hard to beat IMHO. I started with a clean slate a little over a year ago and bought a 40D before the release of the 50D so they are lots cheaper now then they were back then. Keep in mind, any camera you buy will be succeeded in a very short time. Don't get hung up on that fact. Its going to happen every year. Just get a good body, go out and shoot. The best advise would be to buy a camera, then stay off of the internet. LOL That way you can avoid "gear lust" and "pixel peeping" nonsense.

Derrick

 

[Katier]

Honestly, if I was starting with a totally clean slate (not married to any brand yet), I would strongly consider the Canon 40D. I am not saying this because I own one, but because of the features/build/price. If you want the most camera for your dollar, its hard to beat IMHO.

Problem with the 40D is it's pretty much been superceded by the competition. A year ago it probably was a very good choice but the K20D, D90 and (probably) others are all really a better choice now. It's a shame canon wise that the 50D seems to have hit the 'cram too many MP into the sensor P&S style' problems of noise.

 

[manaheim]

I really do not see why IS is so important. Personally, a "fast" and "sharp" lens is more important to me.

For example, if 70-200mm F/2.8 lens cost the same as 70-200mm F/4 IS lens, I will rather buy the 70-200mm F/2.8.

Don't get me wrong, it is a nice feature to have, but faster lens is better.

I only have one lens that has IS, and that is a telephoto lens. All the rest of the lenses do not have IS nor do I need IS on them.

If they do make a 50mm f/1.8 lens with IS and cost more, I would rather buy the one without. If Tamron make an 17-50mm F/2.8 lens has VC (Tamron version of IS) and cost more, I would rather buy the one without and save some money.

Arguably the VR/IS gives you 2ish stops of light to work with beyond the base of the lens, and often for less money than a comparably fast lens wold be. This, of course, ignores that optics tend to be better in the faster lens, and that you'll get better DOF in the faster lens... but certainly, this is part of the consideration when buying.

Lenses are a study in compromises.

 

[inTempus]

Problem with the 40D is it's pretty much been superceded by the competition. A year ago it probably was a very good choice but the K20D, D90 and (probably) others are all really a better choice now. It's a shame canon wise that the 50D seems to have hit the 'cram too many MP into the sensor P&S style' problems of noise.

I guess that's all a matter of perspective.

I weighed very heavily buying a D90 vs. a 50D. I still went with the 50D. I'm not into plastic bodies. I didn't care for the menuing system of the D90. I also didn't care for the ergonomics, things like the shutter release pointing almost straight up which is an unnatural position for my big hands.

Now, the D300 vs. the 50D... I should have weighed that option a little more, but at the time I didn't have easy access to a D300. I could very easily see myself with a D300 and now a D700. But the D90's plastic body at the price point it's at just doesn't flop my mop. Give me magnesium for $1,200 - not plastic!

IQ wise, I could post an image from a 50D and one for a D90 and I would bet my next paycheck you couldn't tell which camera took which pic.

It boils down to personal preferences.

As for the MP race and Canon - you're right. They could have gave the 50D a modest bump to satisfy the marketing folks (12mp) and implemented the new micro-sensors to bump the ISO performance a full stop or so. It still does an amazing job and I love the 50D, but they could have done some things better obviously.