A Different Kind of "Which Camera"

[Alpha]

Ok. Let me make a couple things clear. No I am not selling out. Yes, I will still be shooting all of my personal work on medium and large format film.

That said, I'm breaking out into the commercial market and have to go digital by necessity. I will only be shooting manual focus lenses. I repeat, I will only be shooting manual focus lenses.

I've decided that digital MF is a little too rich for my blood at the moment. That aside, let's operate under the assumption that I can afford anything you can name.

What I don't want, is to pay for features I don't need. After thinking long and hard about buying an M6TTL or an Ikon, I decided to pursue more paying work. I do not need auto focus. I do not need multiple FPS. I do not need auto-bracketing. Think of another auto-feature. Got one? Ok now get rid of it. I don't need it. I don't mind paying $3k. But I don't want to buy features I won't use. What I could use, is megapixels. I need at least 12. And I need the ability to aperture priority older manual lenses.

With the above in mind, Canon is out because it fails to meet the last criterion.

NOTE: I don't want to read any bull****. I want some educated opinions. Now I know how prone we can be to bull****. So I'll tell you right now, if you respond with a suggestion that doesn't abide by my criteria, I don't care what it is, and I don't care who you are, you will go on my ignore list immediately.

Ok. Now that's out of the way.

I demo'd the D300, the D700, the D3, and the Pentax K20D today. The Nikons are nice but I don't know how I feel about spending $2K+ for 12MP. The Pentax is a great little camera, and I have a line of K-Mount glass. But word on the street is they have plans to stop producing dSLR's and I don't want to have to switch systems if I decide 6 months from now that I need more resolution.

So, let the battle begin.

 

[Ed.]

Ok. Let me make a couple things clear. No I am not selling out. Yes, I will still be shooting all of my personal work on medium and large format film.

That said, I'm breaking out into the commercial market and have to go digital by necessity. I will only be shooting manual focus lenses. I repeat, I will only be shooting manual focus lenses.

I've decided that digital MF is a little too rich for my blood at the moment. That aside, let's operate under the assumption that I can afford anything you can name.

What I don't want, is to pay for features I don't need. After thinking long and hard about buying an M6TTL or an Ikon, I decided to pursue more paying work. I do not need auto focus. I do not need multiple FPS. I do not need auto-bracketing. Think of another auto-feature. Got one? Ok now get rid of it. I don't need it. I don't mind paying $3k. But I don't want to buy features I won't use. What I could use, is megapixels. I need at least 12. And I need the ability to aperture priority older manual lenses.

With the above in mind, Canon is out because it fails to meet the last criterion.

NOTE: I don't want to read any bull****. I want some educated opinions. Now I know how prone we can be to bull****. So I'll tell you right now, if you respond with a suggestion that doesn't abide by my criteria, I don't care what it is, and I don't care who you are, you will go on my ignore list immediately.

Ok. Now that's out of the way.

I demo'd the D300, the D700, the D3, and the Pentax K20D today. The Nikons are nice but I don't know how I feel about spending $2K+ for 12MP. The Pentax is a great little camera, and I have a line of K-Mount glass. But word on the street is they have plans to stop producing dSLR's and I don't want to have to switch systems if I decide 6 months from now that I need more resolution.

So, let the battle begin.

not trying to Bs- but what do you mean by the 2 lines i bolded? kinda contradictory right?

 

[Ed.]

my only reccomendation would be the Fx nikon line you mentioned. all have 12 MP's and all are F-mount's for the older nikkor lenses with manual focus. plus nikkor's been producing f-mount lenses forever and there a great selection to choose from.

 

[Alpha]

In spite of the fact that they're good cameras, compared to other brands they feel like a bit of a sham in terms of cost per pixel. I mean, the ****ing Rebel XSI has a 12MP sensor.

What I mean is, Nikon it making me uneasy when it comes to buying features I won't use.

 

[Ed.]

In spite of the fact that they're good cameras, compared to other brands they feel like a bit of a sham in terms of cost per pixel. I mean, the ****ing Rebel XSI has a 12MP sensor.

I haven't seen the production in pic quality from XSI's but IME with nikon and there high end DSLR's, there great in terms of quality. I'd rather take a lower megapixel D3 over a 1Ds 3 any day becuase of the quality i've compared between pics from both camera's. i have friends who own both.

I'm also just a nikon buff in general

But i'd look out for what you need. Nikkor sells many many many older manuel lenses where as other lesser brands in terms of production, do exactly that- less production, less lenses to choose from.

selection is a big reason why canon/nikon sell so well.

 

[Alpha]

In terms of cost, if I were in the market for something as pricey as a 1DS III, I'd buy digital MF instead.

 

[kundalini]

I don't mean to be brand naming, but if you're looking for that kind of performance in consumer driven cameras, I think the bells and whistles will come with it. It's just part of the package.

Seeing that you are looking for resolution rather than FPS and crap, full frame sensors might be the alley to travel down. There is a rumor out there that (perhaps) by the end of August, Nikon will introduce the D900 with 24MP. Chassis to be around the same size as the D700. Price should be in the $3-4K range. However, you should still be able to mount all the older MF lenses.

 

[Alpha]

Ugh. 12MP. This just feels like such a step-down in quality. My MF cameras **** 12 megapixels.

Maybe I'll just give in and buy the damned Nikon. I just don't wanna get squeezed into AF glass just so I can shoot 22MP on the 1DSIII.

$5K buys a 22MP ZD back for the Mamiya.

 

[Ed.]

I don't mean to be brand naming, but if you're looking for that kind of performance in consumer driven cameras, I think the bells and whistles will come with it. It's just part of the package.

Seeing that you are looking for resolution rather than FPS and crap, full frame sensors might be the alley to travel down. There is a rumor out there that (perhaps) by the end of August, Nikon will introduce the D900 with 24MP. Chassis to be around the same size as the D700. Price should be in the $3-4K range. However, you should still be able to mount all the older MF lenses.

i heard a similar rumor for the Nikon D3X, anywhere from 21-24 effective pixels. Prince range would be much greater though.

 

[Alpha]

What's an effective pixel? If it's anything like Paul Buff's "effective watt-second" I probably don't care much.

 

[Ed.]

What's an effective pixel? If it's anything like Paul Buff's "effective watt-second" I probably don't care much.

difference between $50 10 megapixel walmart camera and $3000 DSLR.

i wouldn't worry about it if your into DSLR's

 

[Alpha]

I mean, you have to understand that I can squeeze 500MP out of my 4x5.

This is a really tough decision for me.

 

[Ed.]

easiest way to explain- Via google

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Effective_Pixels

 

[Alpha]

easiest way to explain- Via google

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Effective_Pixels

Those sensor guys should read up on epitaxial crystal arrangements.

 

[Ed.]

Those sensor guys should read up on epitaxial crystal arrangements.

yeah, well you get the general idea, you can read up on the subject but i don't have the time or energy to explain. thank god for search engines.

will stay tuned to see what other cams people will reccomend.

just remember- lens selection.