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

[Girl Sweat]

yeah mike, i was wondering how much attention i practically need to pay to the numbers. though again i will say that if there's any difference in low-light functionality, it's important

mike, do you have any specific models in mind that you think would work for me and that i could find used easily? what are some good websites to visit?

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).


How Shift Lenses Change your Life - photo.net

sorry if you didn't see, but i'm not interested in TS lenses or anything fancy

i'm only going to pursue this as a hobby (though still seriously) and part of my goal is to challenge myself to make due with "fixed" lenses (i'm not sure what the correct term is). though i assume i will still need a wide-angle

 

[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.

 

[KmH]

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

The D3100 is new and hasn't been available all that long. Look at refurbished as an option to used. Used has no warranty. Nikon warranties stuff they have refurbished for 90 days.

You don't necessarily need high ISO performance for night city shots, you can just use a longer shutter speed, and a tripod.

 

[Girl Sweat]

okay so i've been looking on KEH and i've found a nikon D60 body in Like New condition with batteries etc. for $380

compared to a rebel xti in EX condition for $325

i'm thinking of actually going with the nikon because the nikon has a CCD censor and after some research it seems that the CCD is a better sensor. am i right?

 

[Girl Sweat]

also is 18mm wide angle enough for architecture? on almost all sites 18mm is described as "extreme wide-angle", so i'm surprised to see it so standard. and how much of a zoom is 55mm? KEH also has 17-70mm lenses and i'm wondering if that will be a better option

 

[Patrice]

okay so i've been looking on KEH and i've found a nikon D60 body in Like New condition with batteries etc. for $380

compared to a rebel xti in EX condition for $325

i'm thinking of actually going with the nikon because the nikon has a CCD censor and after some research it seems that the CCD is a better sensor. am i right?

The d60 does not have a built in focus motor, so it will not autofocus the older 'D' lenses. You'll have to use those lenses manually with the d60.

As for which is better - CCD or CMOS, I'm sure the techies are going to jump all over this. Nikon has now gone to CMOS for various reasons, not all of them related to image quality. Plenty of strikingly beautiful images have been produced with CCD sensors.

As for your interest in architectural photography: it is true that TS (tilt-shift) lenses or as nikon calls them PC (perspective control) are designed for that application but, as has been pointed out, they can be rather expensive. An alternative are view cameras and their cousins the field cameras. These excel at this type of photography. Decent ones can be had in the $300 to $500 range while the lenses can be $100 or so, to 'stupidly expensive'. You will have to use sheet film with them and likely have to learn to process it. That is a captivating experience but not difficult to learn. A scanner can then get these into the digital realm. I'm not at all saying 'this is what you must do', there is way too much of that going on anyway, but it is an alternative possibility. (Definitely a conversation starter when you set one on a tripod in a public place. A friend was admitted to the roof structures above the ceiling - the attic of Notre Dame in Paris because he had one on his shoulder and asked politely)

 

[Girl Sweat]

interesting about the field camera. but yeah for my dslr i DON'T WANT ANY FANCY LENSES

 

[Big Mike]

I'd suggest that CMOS sensors are 'better' than CCD, but again, you probably wouldn't notice a difference unless some tech geek pointed it out.

also is 18mm wide angle enough for architecture? on almost all sites 18mm is described as "extreme wide-angle", so i'm surprised to see it so standard. and how much of a zoom is 55mm? KEH also has 17-70mm lenses and i'm wondering if that will be a better option

At this point, you must become aware of the 'crop factor'. The standard that we use for comparison is 35mm film SLR cameras.
On a 35mm film camera, 17mm is very wind angle.

Now if we look at most Digital SLR cameras, the sensor is slightly smaller than a frame of 35mm film. The result is that the camera only 'sees' the middle section of what the lens sees, cropping off the sides. Thus we get the 'crop factor'. For Canon it's 1.6 and for Nikon it's 1.5. So on a Nikon, an 18mm lens would have the same field of view that a 27mm lens would have on a 35mm film SLR...in other words, wide but not all that wide.

There are 'full frame' DSLR cameras, where the sensor is the same size as 35mm film...the Canon 5D and Nikon D700 for example, but they are out of your price range.

So the moral of the story, is that on the cameras that you are looking at. 18mm is 'sort of' wide but not ultra wide. If you want ultra wide for your landscape photography, you will want something that starts in the 10mm to 12mm range.

As far as low light goes, if you are using a tripod, then any of these camera with any lens will do. But if you are wanting something that will allow you to shoot hand held, in lower light situations, then you will want a lens with a larger maximum aperture (lower F number).
For example, the lens that I have to replace my 18-55mm, is the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. It's got a max aperture of F2.8 for the whole zoom range, rather than the F3.5 to F5.6 that the 18-55mm lens has.

Even better, are 'prime' (non-zoom) lenses like a 50mm F1.8 or 30mm F1.4.

 

[Derrel]

Get a Nikon with color-aware light metering. It'll work quite well, and will do better flash metering that a cheap Canon body. As far as CCD sensors go, they are not as horrible as so many people glibly say they are; most medium format backs use CCD sensors. CMOS sensors allow different noise reduction options than CCD sensors.

If you really want low-light, higher-ISO performance, the 12 MP-14.6 MP sensors made by Sony for Nikon, Sony, and Pentax cameras do somewhat better than the higher MP,smaller Canon sensors. If you want one of the best low-light, APS-C Cameras, that would be the Pentax K-x. If this was 5 years ago, I'd say, go Canon. But it's no longer five years ago. Getting into a system now, today, Nikon is a better choice than it was five years ago.

I have a Nikon system, and about a $10,000 Canon system. Right now. I am familiar with the way Canon works, and the way Nikon works. A lot of people really hate that. They despise me for it. A few years ago, I was bashing Nikon on my blog for their sucky body performance. That was FIVE years ago. Nikon leads, currently. Look at DXO Mark. Look at sales in Japan. Canon has slipped to #2.

 

[Girl Sweat]

Thanks mike!

Thanks for your input derrel but remember that my budget is around $500, so i'm not sure what to take away from your statements

and as far as the CCD vs CMOS statements in here i have to say i'm surprised because my research seems to say that for pure quality CCD sensors are better

thanks again for your help, everyone

 

[gsgary]

Secondhand Canon 5Dmk1

 

[inTempus]

DXO Labs, while a great scientific comparison site, is a bit misleading unless you understand their rating system.

Many of those apparently big number differences between cameras translate into real world differences indistinguishable to the human eye. As an example, a difference of an overall score of 79 (5D2) vs. an 82 (D3s) is negligable and unless there's a 5 point difference, you can't even see it with the best set of human eyes on the planet on an absolutely perfectly calibrated monitor.

From the DXO website:

Sensor Overall Score is logarithmic and a 5-point difference on the scale corresponds to a gain or loss of sensitivity of 1/3 of a stop.

If we took the numbers literally then the $20k Hassy would be a massive waste of money compared to the D700 or the 5D2. But we all know the Hassy is the dream camera and the images it produces are nothing short of amazing, certainly beyond what the D700 and 5D2 can produce.

With that being said, Derrel is correct - Nikon in most cases has the superior camera in terms of image quality, even though you won't be able to see those differences in actual images with your eyes in most cases as those differences are so minute. It is, for all intents and purposes, mental gymnastics to surf the DXO site looking for the "best" camera as you're not going to find it strictly based upon those numbers.

As Big Mike said, most cameras in the same price range generally have similar capabilities. As a novice, you're certainly not going to notice much difference in terms of image quality between them.

Where they will stand apart to you, as a novice, will be in the area of ergonomics and price. Which camera fits you better? Which camera works best for you (menus, buttons, etc.)? Which one has lower priced accessories? Which one has lenses that appeal to your particular needs?

With that being said, if you want wide angle lenses for architecture shooting... Nikon has the corner on that market with their rather impressive offerings, but their lenses are EXPENSIVE. You'll spend 4x's as much (if not more) on the superb 24mm f/1.4 lens than you're planning on spending on your camera body. You might be better off with the quite popular Canon 17-40 f/4 for your wide angle needs which tips the financial scales at 1/4 the cost. That's one of the places where Canon has the edge in lenses right now, in their low cost f/4 offerings.

With all of that being said, you buy a camera system not just a camera. That means what you invest in today will likely dictate where you spend your money tomorrow. Once you have a collection of lenses it becomes increasingly less attractive to switch brands down the road.

Personally, I'm with Derrel on the view point that Nikon is taking the lead. I buy bodies at the top end of the Canon line and the D3s really is the king of the hill right now (being a direct competitor to the Canon 1D Mark IV). While the over all image quality, IMHO, goes to the Canon 1D4 the D3s has something I'm willing to trade a little detail for to get - that being uber high ISO capabilities. As Derrel also mentioned, the D3s has a superior metering system as well. I'm going to wait a year to see how things play out with Nikon's D700 replacement and the 5D2 replacement from Canon to make up my mind as to which brand I will go with down the road. Right now I'm pretty heavily invested in Canon. I'm also quite pleased with my Canon gear for the most part... the problem is you're always tempted to buy something you don't have.

At the price point you're shopping at, you'll be served well by either Canon or Nikon. Go play with them, use their menus, shoot some images, get a feel for them. Then follow your heart.

 

[inTempus]

Secondhand Canon 5Dmk1

That's probably a wee-bit out of her $500 price range.

 

[Destin]

I'd look into a used nikon d90. They can be had for around $600-650 all day long. It's a great camera, and the in body focus motor us a huge bonus over, say the d3100 or the d5000. It means you have the option to use cheaper, older AF lenses, and are not required to get af-s lenses to have autofocus.

Thats what I'd have right now if Nikon didn't announce the d7000 a week before I had the cash for the d90. Now I gotta save another $500, that d7000 is just calling my name. Loudly.

 

[Mike_E]

If you really care about architectural photography (and if you're an architect I guess you do) you really need to look into Large Format photography. Everything else is just a pale imitation.

You could start with a Speed or Crown Graphic, tanks and chemistry to develop your film and a scanner to bring the negatives to digital )if you don't want to print your own) and a serviceable tripod for around $600. (if you can follow directions then developing film isn't a big deal )

Drop down to the film section if you'd like to ask others about it.


BTW here's a site to visit for some pretty good work. http://1x.com/photos/architecture/