Recommend a camera - don't worry, I'll be specific!

[Girl Sweat]

Hi

I've been pursuing photography casually for several years, always borrowing friends' DSLRs and not having my own. I've decided to buy one.

Now, one of my friends had a Canon Rebel (not sure exactly which model, but one of the entry level versions) and the other had a Nikon which was at the same level (d60 or whatever). I always preferred the Canon. So I looked up some reviews and found that the new Rebel T2i is getting good ones, but it's a little bit beyond my desired price range and has video capabilities which I do not want.

Also, I'm not interested in terribly high MP numbers - I favor quality over MP.

I am an architect and am buying this camera because I think architectural photography is in a dismal state. I will mostly be photographing architecture, which, for me, requires low-light capabilities (night-time city shots).

Also, I'm not set on buying new - I just want the best camera for me for the best price.

So, any ideas? Thanks!

Remember:

>Willing to buy used
>Preference for Canon from personal experience, BUT willing to hear your opinions.
>Do NOT need video capability
>Low-light performance important
>$500 is the sweet spot, but I'm a student so if possible less is great!
>DO NOT need continuous shooting (a high FPS)
>DO NOT need live view
>DO NOT need extremely high MP counts

EDIT:
Also, should I buy just the body and opt for a nicer lens? I will probably need wider than "standard" angle because of the nature of arch photography

 

[12sndsgood]

You might want to add your budget into the mix so everyone can know where your at price wise.

 

[Derrel]

Quote: "I favor quality over MP"

Buy a Nikon then.

 

[Girl Sweat]

Quote: "I favor quality over MP"

Buy a Nikon then.

would you be willing to qualify your statement?

i'm willing to buy a nikon
but this is the type of statement i'm trying NOT to base my decision on

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

You left out what your budget is (besides saying that the T2i is too expensive).
I will also ask how serious you want to get with architectural photography...because if you want to get really serious, you may eventually want to get a tilt-shift lens for your camera...and if that's the case, you may want to invest in a 'full frame' DSLR, rather than a 'crop body' camera.

As far as which camera to choose, I think that any of the previous digital EOS models would be OK for you. I wouldn't go too old though...I'd avoid the 10D or the 300D (first digital Rebel) but the 20D or Rebel XT would be decent.
Keep in mind the lens. While it may be OK to start with the usually 18-55mm 'kit' lens, you may want something wider for architecture and you may eventually want the tilt-shift ones that I mentioned.

You can use the T/S lenses with the 'crop' cameras (Rebels, XXD and 7D) but because of the crop, your angle of view wouldn't be as wide. So if you want both a wide angle view and T/S, then you would want something like the EOS 5D and the 24mm T/S. That would be an expensive combination though.

Also keep in mind that you will probably want a good quality tripod for this type of photography...which can cost anywhere from $150 to $500.

 

[djacobox372]

Since you're no stranger to "borrowing," which friend has the better lens collection? That might determine which brand to go with (nikon or canon).

 

[Girl Sweat]

they both only have kit lenses (15-55mm or w/e). and they both live in different states now so unfortunately it's no longer an option (otherwise i'd still be borrowing their cameras!)


Thanks, Big Mike

I edited in my budget: $500 would be awesome

and I was also wondering if I should just buy a body and go for a lens with wider-angle capabilities. BUT i do intend to pursue architectural photography only as a hobby and i want to challenge myself with the fixed lens/angle style, so nothing fancy.

in other words: you guys don't really need to think about the fact that i'll be shooting architecture other than that i'd like decent low-light capability

and yeah, i own a decent tripod right now

 

[Derrel]

Quote: "I favor quality over MP"

Buy a Nikon then.

would you be willing to qualify your statement?

i'm willing to buy a nikon
but this is the type of statement i'm trying NOT to base my decision on

DxOMark - Sensor rankings
Take a look at which sensors are the highest-performing. Then scroll down quite a ways to get to the Canons. Take note: Sony is making the sensors used in the top-performing sensor cameras marketed by Nikon,Pentax, and Sony.

Take out the medium format systems costing $29,000-$60,000 and the top-performing sensors of both FF and APS-C are found in Nikon bodies.

Statement qualified.

 

[Neil S.]

Quote: "I favor quality over MP"

Buy a Nikon then.

Derrel...

Although I know what you are saying and actually agree with it, people will get the wrong idea saying something like this lol.

Remember how much technical information was involved in the discussion about sensor pixel density?

Most people here probably still dont understand this, and it wasnt that long ago that I didnt either.

 

[Girl Sweat]

interesting, thanks for the link

of those and considering the test it seems like maybe the nikon D3100 is a good option for me, but nikon has the "live view" thing which I know i will not need - am i paying more for that?

actually i'm having a hard time finding used ones and that may be a little bit expensive

 

[Girl Sweat]

for some reason i can't find ANY of these cameras used

what are the older equivalents?

 

[Big Mike]

As much as I respect Derrell's knowledge and opinions, I'd forget about what he's saying (& linking to) in this thread. I think it's beyond the scope of this discussion.

In real world practicality, there isn't much difference from one DSLR camera to another...especially if you are comparing cameras in the same price bracket.

If you have used both a Canon and a Nikon, and you prefer the Canon, that is more than enough reason to go with a Canon for yourself. Or go with a Nikon if you can find a good deal on one...it really doesn't matter much in the big picture, so to speak.

The lens you use, and how YOU use it...will matter a whole heck of a lot more.

 

[Greasy]

I just looked at the used sections on a bunch of the main sites. It looks like Adorama has a good selection.

Buy Cameras | Adorama, the Photography People

 

[icassell]

I was also going to mention the lens. As a dedicated architectural photographer, you will likely want a T-S. Canon's T-S lenses are amazing, but I don't know the Nikon options. It would be worth investigating. I got to play with the Canon 17mm f/4 TS and didn't want to give it back (but it's about $2100).


http://photo.net/equipment/canon/tilt-shift

 

[Patrice]

In real world practicality, there isn't much difference from one DSLR camera to another...especially if you are comparing cameras in the same price bracket.

If you have used both a Canon and a Nikon, and you prefer the Canon, that is more than enough reason to go with a Canon for yourself. Or go with a Nikon if you can find a good deal on one...it really doesn't matter much in the big picture, so to speak.

The lens you use, and how YOU use it...will matter a whole heck of a lot more.

:thumbup:

There is a reason Big Mike is a moderator - the voice of reason.