Buying a camera is frustrating

[jimiismydaddy]

Alright so I've been researching this for a month and I think I have finally narrowed it down to 3 dslrs. Ive been to wolf twice and talked to the same guy at least for an hour total. Any of the following they will sell to me for $800. Im also looking on ebay possibly. Im looking at shooting mainly local bands, so I need something suited for fast low light action(looking at a 1.8 prime lens as well), and also like doing wildlife.

I have felt them all, read about all of them, done the dpreview. I have done everything everyone tells people to do on this forum. I guess I am just looking for personal opinions Thanks a bunch!

Canon Rebel XT
- Great for action
- fast focus time
- 8 MP
- Ok kit lens

Nikon D70s
store has one of these left, and the guy said it came with a $400 lens. It was a Nikon 30-70mm.
- 6 MP
- Fastest focus
- Salesperson said it was the best of the three

Sony Alpha100
- Image Stabilization
- 10 MP
- Cheap minolta lenses on ebay
- worst noise of all three

 

[just x joey]

get the d70s such a nice cmaera.

 

[shingfan]

"biased opinion from a nikon D80 user" get the nikon D70s

(i'm also a big canon fan)

 

[Jeremy Z]

jimi,

I would go with the Sony. Couple that with a 50mm f/1.8, and you will be a very happy man with your indoor, available light shooting of bands.

After having bought the Pentax K100D, I cannot see how people are still snapping up these Nikons & Canons w/o anti-shake without considering the others more seriously. The anti-shake DOES work. There are lots of good optics available, and more of the best on the market coming. (Zeiss is making lenses for the Sony mount now, though they are not cheap)

I bought my Pentax at Wolf too. I got the body & kit lens for $700, then had them match a local shop (Calumet Photographic) and got back $90. Also, I got a free 4x6 HP photo printer. It has anti-shake, like the Minolta, has lots of cheap lenses available on ebay, like Minolta (probably 5X more of them though) and has lower noise at higher ISOs than the Minolta. The kit lens is very nice; much nicer than those of Canon & Nikon.

But if I had to settle for one of the three you mentioned, I would go with the Sony.

 

[firemedic0135]

I am new to photography ,at least dslr and manual controls and I can say that I love my new alpha.The "IS" works very well and have made several hand held shots with it on and with it off and can tell the difference.I cant tell you whether I like the iso topping out at 1600 or how much noise is there because I have never shot another camera higher than 800 nor have I shot the rebel,d70.I dont think you can go wrong either way you go.I do know that popphoto rated the new d80 the top 10mp camera this month(whatever thats worth)and canon,pentax,samsung,and sony fell in behind.Doesnt matter to me I have a great new camera and I am learning my new hobby everyday and improving my skills everytime I go shoot.there are pros and cons to each camera.Pick the one you like the most by feel and features and get and start shooting!!Its alot of fun!!
Oh almost forgot to mention you buy these old maxxum slrs on ebay all day with 50mm 1.7 af for about 40 bux.chunk the clunker in the trash or keep it for a backup.:thumbup:

 

[sothoth]

I'd get the Canon (I picked that one for myself, I like the sensor and image quality, which I picked by looking at large prints from each).

Also check out the new Pentax 10mp DSLR (K10D). If I were making the decisions today I'd consider that along with the others you mentioned. I've always been partial to Pentax's simplicity model when making cameras. That way you pay for what you need, not for useless stuff that won't effect your image quality.

I don't know what all these other people are smoking but why would you pay almost as much money for a 6MP Nikon when you can get 8-10MP for the same price? And I don't care what everyone says, you can tell the difference with a lower resolution sensor, esp if you compare a 6MP to a 10MP (or even 8MP) when you blow up to even 8x10. Would one of these "get the Nikon lower resolution camera" please explain why you're so in love with that camera?? And yes, I'm mostly joking, although I'm being serious that I don't get the love affair with Nikon for seemingly no [rational] reason IMO.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Nikon D70s
store has one of these left, and the guy said it came with a $400 lens. It was a Nikon 30-70mm.

Is the lens a push-pull zoom? if it is, than it's actually the 35-70, and that's what you ought to buy. That $400 lens is an f/2.8 lens. The 35-70 f/2.8 is insanely sharp for a zoom.

 

[ksmattfish]

...so I need something suited for fast low light action...

Canon DSLRs have the reputation of being the least noisy at high ISOs. But overall, I don't think you can go wrong between the current DSLRs in your price range from Canon, Nikon, or Pentax. There's probably nothing wrong with the Sony either, but I just can't bring myself to seriously consider a DSLR from a non-camera company when there are good DSLRs available from established industry giants.

 

[SaSi]

Buying a camera body is simple. Buying lenses from that point on is the difficult part.

Before you buy, decide in which of the two dSLR user category you find yourself fitting best:

Category A: Will buy the best possible deal for a fixed budget and use that for the short-term future. If, at any point you decide the "set" is not good enough, you will sell it and look for new.

Category B: Wull buy a camera (and additional lenses/flashes) and start building a system around the camera. Additional lenses are expected to be needed (although in the future due to money/skills buildup), as well as additional accessories (flash/grip/etc)

If you belong to category A, select based on the total value of the kit offered. Olympus and Sony seem to offer better deals.

If you belong to category B, ignore the additional options and focus on the body. You don't want to pay for lenses you will soon find out are lacking in performance and need to be replaced.

Think about it and let us know if you are an A or a B. I will then give you more comments. (I am a B myself)...

 

[Don Simon]

There's probably nothing wrong with the Sony either, but I just can't bring myself to seriously consider a DSLR from a non-camera company when there are good DSLRs available from established industry giants.

An understandable reason, although the Sony is largely a Minolta product. I consider Sony a camera company, a purely digital camera company but they are good at that. It's far from being their sole area of business, but then Canon make copiers and Pentax make medical equipment. I guess the main difference is Sony is not an optical company in the same way, but they have excellent glass designed/made/relabelled for them so that's not necessarily a problem. And they do know what they're doing when it comes to digital sensors, as those of us with Nikon or Pentax dSLRs can confirm. So I'm not too concerned about the quality, range or availability of the products and systems currently on offer, however customer service is another matter, and to be honest I would feel a lot happier if Sony did a few things: First, differentiate their dSLR system from being 'another Sony product' hidden on their websites, and second release some information about their future plans. But no system is perfect and I would still consider buying a Sony dSLR today.

For the original poster, while personally I went for "none of the above", I don't think you can go wrong with any of them, or a number of other dSLRs. Also look at the available lenses and accessories, look at the price (new and used) of the ones you are likely to want. As I said IMO there is no totally perfect system. There is only the one which is best suited to you.

 

[usayit]

I'm also biased towards Canon...

With that said, I'd probably go with a Pentax if my budget was as tight as yours. There is an entire world of manual Kmount lenses to explore with little cash... with image stabilization to boot....

Then again.. I collect pentaxes... Once a Pentax DSLR drops below $200 (used even), I'll seriously consider it just to have a compact alternative digital to go with my already established collection of Kmounts.

Really wish they released that digital 645....

 

[darich]

After having bought the Pentax K100D, I cannot see how people are still snapping up these Nikons & Canons w/o anti-shake without considering the others more seriously. The anti-shake DOES work.

The anti shake built into the camera body isn't nearly as effective as a similar system built into the lens.
The reason is because the lens moves, not necessarily the body. If the body isn't moving much but the lens is how can the anti shake be effective?

Yes it's a good idea to have it in the body since it means that all lenses have that system. However, the system built into the lens is more effective and if you have a 50mm f1.8, do you actually need anti shake?
I'd think you only need it on the long zooms so buy those zoom lenses with anti shake.

I'd also point out that if you buy a lens with antishake it's part of your system, but when the camera with built in antishake becomes obsolete, or is limiting your photography, you'll lose the anti shake system.

And as someone already pointed out, I'd go with the Canon or Nikon since Sony isn't a camera company. I realise they'll get other to make or supply parts but that's it - they get others to do it.
Why go for a sony when there are 2 other giant companies making similar products.
I'm not saying the sony is a poorer camera but with canon or nikon you're buying into their system and their years of experience, not sony's attempt to capture part of the market.

I wouldn't buy a nikon TV since they don't make them. I'd buy a sony.

 

[Jeremy Z]

The anti shake built into the camera body isn't nearly as effective as a similar system built into the lens.
The reason is because the lens moves, not necessarily the body. If the body isn't moving much but the lens is how can the anti shake be effective?

But how can the body be moving without the lens also moving? If either one moves, the image suffers. I've also read that it isn't as effective in the body as in the lens, but I can settle for a two-stop advantage, especially when it means I can use it with any lens. With the longer lenses, the lens-based anti-shake is going to be better. But please note that the Pentax system is tied to the focal length. As the focal length gets longer, the anti-shake becomes more sensitive.

Yes it's a good idea to have it in the body since it means that all lenses have that system. However, the system built into the lens is more effective and if you have a 50mm f1.8, do you actually need anti shake?
I'd think you only need it on the long zooms so buy those zoom lenses with anti shake.

Let's say you have a 50mm set to f/1.8 and your exposure is 1/15s at ISO800. With a Canon body, you would have to go up two more ISO settings to guaruntee a sharp image. With the Pentax and the same settings, you could still shoot at ISO800 and get a sharp image. The end result will be a better image from the Pentax, no matter which Canon body you compare it with. What about if the exposure is 1/15s at ISO 3200? Quite simply, the Pentax will make a sharp shot, and the Canon or Nikon won't. For low, ambient light photography, (especially at shorter focal lengths) the body-based anti-shake systems rule.

Canon DSLRs have the reputation of being the least noisy at high ISOs.

Not any more. Not since the Pentax K100D and K10D came out! The Canons only slightly edge out the Pentaxes for color accuracy too...

 

[table1349]

jimi,
After having bought the Pentax K100D, I cannot see how people are still snapping up these Nikons & Canons w/o anti-shake without considering the others more seriously. The anti-shake DOES work. There are lots of good optics available, and more of the best on the market coming. (Zeiss is making lenses for the Sony mount now, though they are not cheap)

Being a serious photographer for 30+ years it is easy to see why people are snapping up Nikons and Canons w/o anti-shake. I don't own one of Canon's IS lenses nor do I plan on owning one anytime in the near future for my system. Things like anti-shake will never replace good technique and knowledge. If anti-shake were the "God" so many people seem to think, people like ANSEL ADAMS, ALFRED EISENSTAEDT, DOROTHEA LANGE, DAVID SEYMOUR and countless others would never have taken a decent photograph.

My 35mm format was a Nikon F2, my medium format was Pentax 67. My choice for Digital is Canon. All were choosen as a system, not for a camera. They were choosen for what the whole system had to offer. If Sony's anti-shake is so good, why don't you see it on the sidelines of professional sports events? Sony is no nickle and dime company. They could easily provide some bodies and lenses to say 50 of the most published sports photographers to prove their worth. They choose their system for their neededs and it would seem as if in body anti-shake does not fit their needs. As I have for the most part given up hunting with a firearm and replaced it with a camera, I may sometime in the future consider the 400mm f2.8IS for longrange, lowlight wildlife photography. I am willing to spend the $7000.00 for that lens if I decide to expand my photographic horizions in that direction. After renting the lens and seeing if it is a form a photography I would like to indulge in and am satisfied with the lens.

jimiismydaddy seems to have done his homework and has narrowed down his choices to what he is interested in. What jimiismydaddy needs to do is to go to a good photography shop and try out the three choices he has made, with the lenses and accessories he is interested in, find the one he liks the best and make the choice that is right for him based on his needs.

 

[jimiismydaddy]

This has been a big help, thanks everyone. To answer Sasi's question, seeing as this is my first slr, Im probably more of a group A. Sony probably has the most appeal right now since I can get those Minolta lenses on ebay dirt cheap. The Anti-shake too, though it seems like a toss up, will be better because I cant afford tacking on 400 bucks to lenses for IS.

Im on a very tight budget, no more than $1000.