Sony, Pentax, Canon, Nikon

[mordred612]

Within the next few weeks I will purchase a digital slr and would like to know what some of you think about this. I'm looking at the most I can get for under $1400.00 and have been really considering the Canon 40D. I like the 6 frames per second, viewing screen, and how solid it feels.

I've always enjoyed taking pictures with my Pentax K1000 and believe I have pretty good eye for color, symmetry, and all things aesthetically pleasing. I would like to take my appreciation for photography to another level and am looking for a good digital camera to help me with the transition to digital.

Problem is that everyone has an opinion about why the camera they purchased is the best out there and all salesmen are selling.

Some things I like about the cameras I've looked at so far:

Frames per second is important because I'll take pictures of animals, insects, and people in motion.

I like the auto focus on the Sony cams when you bring your eye to the viewfinder though it is just another thing to fail so it isn't that important

Stabilization on the camera itself seems like a good idea as with the Sony cameras to keep the cost of lenses down, but I am not familiar with their optics and am concerned with the quality.

A remote control would be nice, but isn't that important.

The large viewing screen of the Canon is nice as is the magnesium alloy body.

I travel quite a bit and am very active.. This camera will go with me on long hikes, kayaking, and overseas in different climates.

So I'm thinking about the Canon 40D, but would consider Sony, Pentax, or Nikon if the quality or price was right. Any ideas?

 

[D-50]

why is 6 fps soo important from what you said those things do not move that fast relatively speaking and 5 or even 4 fps would probably do just fine. I would not base my decision on FPS. I like that th egizmos Sony offers are not attracting you, things like that do not add to the photograph they are just bells and whistles. a camera with a strong metal body is a good investment, no matter how careful you are you are going to whck you camera into something at some point and a magnesium body with stand up better. Personaly I would go with a canon or Nikon those two brands are tried and true. You couls get a D200 for a solid rice right now and that is a great camera from personal experience, although I hear the 40D is nice as well and Canon are better on noise so if you shooting fast moving things in lower light you can bump up your ISO and not have as much noise.

 

[skieur]

Well, in the glass department Sony G lenses and Zeiss lenses test out at the top along with Leica. Minolta lenses tested out equal or better than many Nikon lenses and they can be used on the Sony Alpha.

As to features, Popphoto has indicated that the Sony live view is better than any other and does not interfere with focus speed etc. as with other brands. The tilt screen on the Sony A350 is extremely useful for street shooting. Being able to lift the camera over the heads of the crowd and use the live view for framing is really useful. The autofocus by the way even works when shooting at any level with the tilt screen above or way below eye level.

I added a Sony to my cameras strictly because of the glass and features which I find useful for some of the work I do.

skieur

 

[Garbz]

Is that because their liveview is incredibly fast, or because their normal AF is incredibly slow. Someone was showing off their camera to me a while back and it failed to impress (that feature anyway, I must say that the quality of the images they take are as good as any other DSLR)

FPS is something important at press conferences and little more. If you like taking photos of sports and insects, just pointing the camera and holding the finger down is less likely to get you that critical moment then watching the game and pressing the shutter at the right time. The critical feature here you are looking for shutter lag, and blackout. The former is the time it takes between you pressing the button and the picture being taken, and the latter is how long the viewfinder takes to come back up (i.e. mirror flipping lag).

 

[skieur]

Is that because their liveview is incredibly fast, or because their normal AF is incredibly slow. Someone was showing off their camera to me a while back and it failed to impress (that feature anyway, I must say that the quality of the images they take are as good as any other DSLR)

FPS is something important at press conferences and little more. If you like taking photos of sports and insects, just pointing the camera and holding the finger down is less likely to get you that critical moment then watching the game and pressing the shutter at the right time. The critical feature here you are looking for shutter lag, and blackout. The former is the time it takes between you pressing the button and the picture being taken, and the latter is how long the viewfinder takes to come back up (i.e. mirror flipping lag).

Autofocus is apparently faster than the Canon 40D according to PopPhoto. Live view is instant on the Sony rather than other cameras by the way because Sony uses two chips.

skieur

 

[Village Idiot]

Save a couple more dollars and pick up a used Canon 5D. FF > than all :mrgreen:

 

[roadkill]

Go to your local camera shop and try em all. Ask questions.

 

[reg]

You forgot Olympus.

And Poland.

 

[deudeu]

for that price, you will get a prosumer camera.
I don't think that you will be able to tell the difference between the pictures of any of the brands when looking at a 8x10 print with similar lenses.
So really, if you like the way the 40D feels, you should probably get it (but if you are going to go Kayaking with it, make sure it is weather sealed, I don't know if it is).
Though, if you have a lot of K-mount lenses to go along with your K1000, you would save quite a bit by picking up a K20D. It is a fine camera as well.