Does it REALLY matter what brand of camera I buy?

Senor Hound · May 28, 2008

I've been racking my brain on what kind of DSLR camera to buy lately. And I can't decide, mostly because they're all so good. I was looking at a Canon (cause I have two lenses for one), and then a Nikon (all the controls are in the right places), and then I was looking at a Sony/KonicaMinolta (in-camera IS will greatly help shooting indoors with a kit lens, which is what I plan on doing a lot of), and then a Pentax (I hear you can get good prime lenses for cheap with a K100)

The truth is, I can LEARN to love any camera. I haven't been shooting near long enough to have any ingrained patterns in me which require me to be brand loyal. And I really only foresee me using this camera with kit lenses and possibly a prime or two (if I can get one for a good price). At this point in time in my life, I am so poor that if I decide to upgrade, I'd probably change out everything, not just one piece at a time like most do.

Everyone says to pick the one that feels the best, but the cameras are so similar to a SLR noob like me, that it really doesn't matter all that much.
And image quality doesn't really matter too much, cause they're all close, and will all blow my Panasonic out of the water with image quality.

So, considering all of this, does it REALLY matter what brand or type of camera I buy? At this point I'm starting to wonder.

JerryPH · May 28, 2008

When you buy into a brand, you buy into a system. So, yes it is important as to what you buy. If you do not know what to buy... its not time to buy.

Don't feel the need to rack your head over this. Learn the features, differences and feels of the levels of camera that you desire in a dSLR. You will find what is best for you if you do your research.

In the meantime, you are taking more time to save up a little more money.

If the Canon lenses that you have are fast and of higher quality, well then a lot of your work is done for you. If they are low-end or "average", don't bother with them in your decision process.

tirediron · May 28, 2008

From what you've described, I would say, no, it doesn't matter. You've obviously got a head-start by having some Canon glass kicking around, but is it glass that would be useful? The "get the one that feels right" is very important. You mentioned that you like the Nikon ergonomics, that's a big vote in it's favour. In-camera VR/IS/Whatever they want to call it? Personally, I don't see the appeal; photographers got along fine without up for a hundred or so years... and after all, a good tripod is better than any electronic system.

Remember, the camera body is only the medium which records the image. What I would suggest is look at the lenses and think about what you would like to be doing photographicall in say, five years. Then see who has glass that you like better. I suspect that a kit lens isn't going to satisfy you for very long, and once you get a few thousand dollars invested in glass, it's hard to justify changing brands...

If you've got friends with the different models try them and see what you think. Also read all the reviews you can find. One of them may mention something which for you is s showstopper...

dangergoinoff · May 28, 2008

Sounds like at the moment your greatest concern is the financial concern. If as you seem to be saying this camera is going to be a "learning" tool then it would make sense to save a couple of hundred bucks initially but I am sure that in a few years time you will probably regret that decision when you are faced with buying a new lens or a whole new set up.

Senor Hound · May 28, 2008

dangergoinoff said:
Sounds like at the moment your greatest concern is the financial concern. If as you seem to be saying this camera is going to be a "learning" tool then it would make sense to save a couple of hundred bucks initially but I am sure that in a few years time you will probably regret that decision when you are faced with buying a new lens or a whole new set up.

That's why I just want a cheaper body with kit lenses now. I want this to take me through college, cause right now I'm poor. I know getting a job post-degree isn't the same as winning the lottery, but I should see my income double in the next 2 years (I only make $7.50 an hour now, so this shouldn't be hard).

I appreciate the advice, and I could be wrong, but I really only see this camera as a temporary investment until I graduate. I'm basically looking for an upgrade to my Panasonic to play around with, I wouldn't consider it an investment into a new system. Whenever I get to the point where I want something new or better, I'm just going to buy a new body AND whatever lens(es) I want also. The body I buy is going to be a previous generation one, and a cheap one at that.

And Tirediron: I totally agree with you on the IS. I don't need it, but it is REALLY nice. I was taking photos at my friends house with his A700 (Sony) and was shooting at speeds of, like, an EIGHTH of a second without a tripod. I get delegated as the official photographer for most of my family's social events, and this means a lot of indoors photography while walking around. I could REALLY see the built in VR as being a cool feature, that's all.

BTW, I do understand the importance of good glass, which is why I'm not going the Olympus route. Their bodies are great, but their lenses are pricey and somewhat limited in selection. Plus they only have 2 or 3 primes, and they're all fairly expensive in comparison to other brand's prices.

I guess all I REALLY want is a camera that is better than my Panasonic Lumix.

dangergoinoff · May 28, 2008

Thats fair.
I got the Pentax K100d super last September because for my skill and lack of knowledge in the area despite my enthusiasm it didnt make sense to spend an extra $300 on a Nikon or Canon.
I don't have any regrets so far.

JIP · May 28, 2008

It doesn't matter what brand you buy as long as you buy a Canon or Nikon.

skieur · May 28, 2008

The "buying into a system" concept is not always relevant. Not everyone envisages buying a ton of lenses, flashes, and multiple camera bodies.

One camera, an auxiliary flash unit, and a couple of good 2.8 zooms can cover from 28mm wide angle to 300mm telephoto which can certainly meet the needs of most enthusiasts and even pros, depending on the type of shooting they do.

Despite any rhetoric, it would be rather difficult quality-wise to say that one of the following lenses is much better than the others among: Leica, Zeiss, Canon, and Nikon. As to camera bodies, it is just a matter of which one is fastest, most natural, and easiest to use in design.

So, get what you think you will like and don't concern yourself with brand.

skieur

asfixiate · May 28, 2008

Nice use of the word envisage.

When I made my choice I went with industry leaders as well as what I could afford. When I upgrade I will stay with industry leaders. You can't go wrong with Pentax, sony, etc but I felt Nikon and Canon had the edge.

I like the fact that my rebel can basically use any of the lenses that canon makes without having to buy a 3,000 dollar body.

patrickt · May 28, 2008

When I started my search I quickly discovered that all the DSLRs on the market were capable of taking great photographs.

1. Buying into a system. That's true and important if you're planning on buying some of the $1,000+ lenses. For my modest needs, it was less of an issue.
2. In-camera IS is great. It's true, we didn't have it for over a hundred years. Would you like a list of all the other things we didn't have for over a hundred years? With IS in the lens they seem to be limited to telephotos and expensive.
3. For me, a major factor is how it feels and works for you if you can actually handle the different cameras. I couldn't so I guess I got lucky.

patrickt · May 28, 2008

When I started my search I quickly discovered that all the DSLRs on the market were capable of taking great photographs.

1. Buying into a system. That's true and important if you're planning on buying some of the $1,000+ lenses. For my modest needs, it was less of an issue.
2. In-camera IS is great. It's true, we didn't have it for over a hundred years. Would you like a list of all the other things we didn't have for over a hundred years? With IS in the lens they seem to be limited to telephotos and expensive.
3. For me, a major factor is how it feels and works for you if you can actually handle the different cameras. I couldn't so I guess I got lucky.

RubyMagic · May 28, 2008

Well....seeing as your budget is tiny, and you seem to like primes AND cheap glass...I say go with the Pentax. It has the Ergonomics of the Nikon (Trust me, Ive owned both) and the IS of the Sony. PLUS, you can get a 50mm 2.0 off ebay for like 20 bucks (Trust me, Ive done it).

It just seems like the obvious choice for you, sir.

Rhys · May 28, 2008

If you want fast glass, the Olympus is quite good. They're compact, good glass, fast lenses and they're cheap. I know I'd have a hard job to choose anything other than Olympus is I was going to do a lot of travelling.

audiobomber · May 28, 2008

RubyMagic said:
Well....seeing as your budget is tiny, and you seem to like primes AND cheap glass...I say go with the Pentax. It has the Ergonomics of the Nikon (Trust me, Ive owned both) and the IS of the Sony. PLUS, you can get a 50mm 2.0 off ebay for like 20 bucks (Trust me, Ive done it).

It just seems like the obvious choice for you, sir.

I agree. And even the legacy lenses will benefit from in-body shake reduction. So will the very capable Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro lens for $130 new. Plus the Pentax comes with a better kit lens than any competing camera according to DPR. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_18-55_3p5-5p6_p15/

The Pentax K100D Super with kit lens was about $100 less than the D40 and $150 less than the XT when I bought, and is a better body IMHO, because of stabilization, dust control and lens compatibility. It handles high ISO as well as any APS-C sensor, i.e. as good as Canon/Nikon, better than Olympus or Sony. I also prefer the fact that it can run on AA batteries.

I am very pleased with the Pentax. Every time I rethink it, I end up with the same answer, the Pentax K100D Super is the best budget camera and the right choice for me.

elemental · May 28, 2008

RubyMagic said:
Well....seeing as your budget is tiny, and you seem to like primes AND cheap glass...I say go with the Pentax. It has the Ergonomics of the Nikon (Trust me, Ive owned both) and the IS of the Sony. PLUS, you can get a 50mm 2.0 off ebay for like 20 bucks (Trust me, Ive done it).

It just seems like the obvious choice for you, sir.

Agreed, and when you say "of the Nikon" you mean "built more solidly than a D40 or other entry-level DSLR could ever hope to be," right?

In all seriousness, if you're on a budget for bodies and lenses, it's tough to beat Pentax. Their bodies are some of the best values in their respective classes, and the availability of heritage lenses on places like eBay means cheap good glass is abundant if you do the research and know what you're looking for. My K100D is amazing, and I would not trade it for a Rebel or D40.

To answer your question though, it does not matter which system you buy. Each has strengths and weaknesses, there is no "best" (no, not even Canon or Nikon. Don't listen to JIP). Some systems may suit you better than others (and some may cost you less than others to get the setup you want), but any entry-level DSLR will make a great learning tool. Since your income will increase drastically in two years anyway, you'll be able to absorb a loss on the body and most of your glass (if it's good) will hold it's value anyway, so jumping ship once you graduate and get a better job isn't the end of the world either.

Don't let lengthy deliberations over which camera to buy get in the way of getting one and getting shooting.