Looking for suggestions on a mid-range DSLR for studio photography

[Marque]

Hi everyone - firstly what a great forum you all have here.

I've had a quick look around, and hopefully I'm not doubling up on any previous posts. I have a branding and design company and we are looking to photograph work for our website in-house. I'm looking for suggestions on an intermediate/midrange DSLR to purchase.

A couple of people in the studio have Nikons (so we are pretty familiar with these cameras D40x, D90), however we are not adverse to looking at different options.

Having done some research these cameras looked pretty good:

Nikon D7000
Nikon D90
Pentax K-5

What are other people's thoughts?

Cheers

 

[Derrel]

Canon 5D Classic. You want a full-frame camera for in-studio use. These are very simple to operate cameras, with excellent image quality,and are currently selling here in the US for $750-$800 used, in great condition. The viewfinder ALONE makes the 5D a MUCH better studio camera than the D7000 or D90...the larger, better, brighter viewfinder of the 5D blows away the tiny, so-so finer of the D7000 or D90.

Oddly enough, I was at Best Buy THIS very morning, and I looked at the D90 and D7000 and the new Nikon D3200,the brand-new 24.2 MP camera for $699 with 18-55 kit zoom, as well as the Canon 7D and the Sony A65. There's just no comparison between the viewfinder of a full-frame camera and a mid-level camera designed to retail around $1100-$1399 or so...remember, the original 5D hit the street at $3,499 US, then went to $3199, then slowly,slowly,slowly got down to about $2199. At in-studio ISO levels, the original 5D's 12.8 MP sensor does a beautiful job!

 

[Marque]

Hi Derrel thanks for the feedback. I can see that a larger format will give render colour nicer as well as better quality darks. Is a large format camera as flexible as a medium format (APS-C) though?

 

[o hey tyler]

Uh... I think you've got your terminology a bit screwed up. The 5D is not a 'large format' camera, and an APS-C is not a "medium format."

A 5D is a full frame camera, while an APS-C is... an APS-C. Crop frames have a narrower field of view inherently due to the smaller sensor size. A full frame camera is MORE flexible (IMO) than a crop frame camera. Especially for studio usage. It will give you more breathing room in your studio, rather than being across the room with an 85mm prime on a crop frame camera.

 

[Marque]

Uh... I think you've got your terminology a bit screwed up. The 5D is not a 'large format' camera, and an APS-C is not a "medium format."

A 5D is a full frame camera, while an APS-C is... an APS-C. Crop frames have a narrower field of view inherently due to the smaller sensor size. A full frame camera is MORE flexible (IMO) than a crop frame camera. Especially for studio usage. It will give you more breathing room in your studio, rather than being across the room with an 85mm prime on a crop frame camera.

When I was talking about format size I was refering to the size of the sensor and yep you're right got things a little screwed up.

Because I'm more use to using a Nikon - what would be the equivalent of the 5D? How does the 5D mark iii compare to the mark ii?

 

[o hey tyler]

Uh... I think you've got your terminology a bit screwed up. The 5D is not a 'large format' camera, and an APS-C is not a "medium format."

A 5D is a full frame camera, while an APS-C is... an APS-C. Crop frames have a narrower field of view inherently due to the smaller sensor size. A full frame camera is MORE flexible (IMO) than a crop frame camera. Especially for studio usage. It will give you more breathing room in your studio, rather than being across the room with an 85mm prime on a crop frame camera.

When I was talking about format size I was refering to the size of the sensor and yep you're right got things a little screwed up.

Because I'm more use to using a Nikon - what would be the equivalent of the 5D? How does the 5D mark iii compare to the mark ii?

Nikon is the same way... They don't make medium or large format cameras. They make full frame or APS-C DSLR's. I think Derrel was suggesting that you pick up a 5D Mark I. It's the least expensive full frame camera on the market, but still puts out wonderful images. I use one myself.

A lot of the images in this thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...es-thesis-work-awesome-art-installations.html are taken with the 5D Mark I. Although, there are a few taken with a 5D2 and 35 f/1.4L.

 

[Marque]

Ok - cool, some good suggestions there. Next step is to get the camera in hand and see how it feels. Oh yeah, and a couple of lights.

Incidentally there are canon people, nikon people and so on. Do you find one brand is definitely better than the other in terms of DSLR?

P.S. sweet little brand your gf did there.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

A used D3/D700 is the equivalent. Contrary to most of the comments here, I recommend a D7000, or even a D5100. Why? In studio, you don't need extraordinary low light performance. A 5D isn't much better than D7000 in terms of noise (less than 1/3 of a stop). The viewfinder isn't really very very important, in studio you would be using tripods, so you might use live view more. An articulating screen might serve you better. On the other hand, color fidelity and dynamic range is much more important in studio compared to low light performance, which D7000 IS much better, especially in dynamic range. As for depth of field, you'd be using primes in studio, so it wouldn't be a large problem.

EDIT: FYI, D7000 do better than 5D in the shadows. Canons are infamous for their high read noise which causes lots of noise and banding in the shadows.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Mid range is the $3000 dollar area, if it's lower, yeah, even D7000's, that's low-end.


If it's got an AUTO mode, it's low end.


5D 1,2, or 3, or D700/800 is mid range.



Otherwise, get a medium format film camera and send them off to RPL.....SMOKE a DLSR.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Mid range is the $3000 dollar area, if it's lower, yeah, even D7000's, that's low-end.


If it's got an AUTO mode, it's low end.


5D 1,2, or 3, or D700/800 is mid range.



Otherwise, get a medium format film camera and send them off to RPL.....SMOKE a DLSR.

You know P, A, S modes are auto right?

 

[gsgary]

A used D3/D700 is the equivalent. Contrary to most of the comments here, I recommend a D7000, or even a D5100. Why? In studio, you don't need extraordinary low light performance. A 5D isn't much better than D7000 in terms of noise (less than 1/3 of a stop). The viewfinder isn't really very very important, in studio you would be using tripods, so you might use live view more. An articulating screen might serve you better. On the other hand, color fidelity and dynamic range is much more important in studio compared to low light performance, which D7000 IS much better, especially in dynamic range. As for depth of field, you'd be using primes in studio, so it wouldn't be a large problem.

EDIT: FYI, D7000 do better than 5D in the shadows. Canons are infamous for their high read noise which causes lots of noise and banding in the shadows.

Bull****

 

[Derrel]

I kind of agree with gsgary. Like 100 percent...

 

[o hey tyler]

A used D3/D700 is the equivalent. Contrary to most of the comments here, I recommend a D7000, or even a D5100. Why? In studio, you don't need extraordinary low light performance. A 5D isn't much better than D7000 in terms of noise (less than 1/3 of a stop). The viewfinder isn't really very very important, in studio you would be using tripods, so you might use live view more. An articulating screen might serve you better. On the other hand, color fidelity and dynamic range is much more important in studio compared to low light performance, which D7000 IS much better, especially in dynamic range. As for depth of field, you'd be using primes in studio, so it wouldn't be a large problem.

EDIT: FYI, D7000 do better than 5D in the shadows. Canons are infamous for their high read noise which causes lots of noise and banding in the shadows.

You know all this because you do a lot of studio shooting, right?

:lmao:

I second Gary's sentiments.

 

[gsgary]

A used D3/D700 is the equivalent. Contrary to most of the comments here, I recommend a D7000, or even a D5100. Why? In studio, you don't need extraordinary low light performance. A 5D isn't much better than D7000 in terms of noise (less than 1/3 of a stop). The viewfinder isn't really very very important, in studio you would be using tripods, so you might use live view more. An articulating screen might serve you better. On the other hand, color fidelity and dynamic range is much more important in studio compared to low light performance, which D7000 IS much better, especially in dynamic range. As for depth of field, you'd be using primes in studio, so it wouldn't be a large problem.

EDIT: FYI, D7000 do better than 5D in the shadows. Canons are infamous for their high read noise which causes lots of noise and banding in the shadows.

You know all this because you do a lot of studio shooting, right?

:lmao:

I second Gary's sentiments.

And he thinks that everything written on this site DxOMark - DxOMark by DxO Labs is gospel

 

[usayit]

LOL.... that's funny. (EchoWhisper responses)

I'm going to bring up something that should have been mention in a thread regarding studio photography..... Flash Sync.

Flash sync speed of all the cameras discussed? Is it good enough? Does it matter?


I think the Canon 5D will make a good studio camera....