Thinking bout going to digital

[Derrel]

The newer Nikon cameras are amazing, because Nikon is buying sensors made by Sony, and also ones made by Toshiba, and Nikon is also making some of its own sensors. Their idea is to get the BEST sensor for each camera. A new, 24-megapixel full-frame Nikon blows any 35mm slide film I ever shot out of the water. The new 24-MP NIkons also blows Tri-X out of the water, but at ISO levels up to an including ISO 6,400, not 400.

35mm film has a lot of grain, and actually pretty low resolving power in most common emulsion types. I remember 12 yars ago, a buddy came by with the then-hot-new-thing, the Canon 10D, a 6MP d-slr. We shot it using my studio flash gear...I remember how AMAZED we were at how much MORE detail it had compared to Portra or VPS or any of the other pro films we'd shot...it was soooooo "smooth"...the image data was just "there"...just "revealed"--not trapped in a mosaic of grain-dots and clumps...

 

[CameraClicker]

There is no "better" between Canon and Nikon. There are some differences between them, this is true. But, there is only the question: "Which is better for you?" And, only you can answer that.

Visit a store. Try them both, see what speaks to you. Your AE1 lenses should work fine with the Canon digital bodies. If you purchase a Nikon, you need new lenses.

I borrowed a film body and shot a roll while shooting digital of the same scene through the same lens. That exercise convinced me digital has arrived and for my photos it is much better than film. I had to borrow a body because my last film camera was Nikon and my digital SLR's are Canon, and my old Canon film bodies all take FD lenses instead of EF lenses.

I thought the AE-1 was new enough to use the EF lenses. Not so. I checked and see it used the older FD lenses. So you are free to move to any digital system since you will need new lenses anyway. You could get adapters, but you would not get the benefits newer lenses offer and the adapter adds space between body and lens.

Try Nikon and Canon, but also try Pentax and Sony. While at the store, look at the mirrorless systems too. Some of the landscape photographers are saying they work great for that.

 

[runnah]

I thought the AE-1 was new enough to use the EF lenses. Not so. I checked and see it used the older FD lenses. So you are free to move to any digital system since you will need new lenses anyway. You could get adapters, but you would not get the benefits newer lenses offer and the adapter adds space between body and lens. Try Nikon and Canon, but also try Pentax and Sony. While at the store, look at the mirrorless systems too. Some of the landscape photographers are saying they work great for that.

Budget is key. If money is no object id try out both the mark 3 and the 810. The Sony A7r is a nice little camera and so are the Fuji bodies.

But if you only have a little money you can't beat the nikon D3000 and D5000 series.

 

[Derrel]

As runnah mentions, budget IS KEY! I used to sell cameras and video gear, many years ago, but the choices one has have ALWAYS been limited/dictated by budget. Right now, Canon's 7D is being sold at a hefty discount because the product is about ready to be "end-of-life" listed; the big German photo exposition, photokina, is this September, and it is expected that the Canon 7D Mark II will be announced. So, in anticipation and due to rumors about the next model coming out, retailers have dropped prices on the 7D, and refurbished units are available in the $805-$904 price range, depending on the day of the week, and the exact specific retailer and how their cash flow seems to be going. You could also step back, back in time, and pick up a Canon 60D, now that the 70D has replaced the 60D.

Keep in mind, you can buy OLD technology, cheaply, because it's older, and less-capable and less-advantageous. The 7D uses a sensor initially released in 2009, and iterated in the following five Canon models. The 7D was once a $1600 camera--six years ago. Same goes for the older, discontinued Nikon cameras like the D5200 or D3100 or D7000: All those are older models that are heavily discounted because there are better, newer models that command the top dollar.

You need to determine how much money you want to part with, and then buy a camera that you think will be good. If you are willing to limit yourself to ISO 640, the Canon 60D or Nikon D5100 are great value cameras; if you want a small camera that shoots almost like a "pro" camera,even at high ISO like ISO 4,000, the Nikon D7100 is the camera to beat. Period. If you have eyesight issues, or eyeglasses, consider that the low-end Rebels and low-end Nikons have very weak, low-magnification, and small-image viewfinder systems; the viewfinder system is the main area of compromise with the lower-priced $400-$899 cameras, and it the BIGGEST single visible issue when one steps up to the mid-level camera like the 7D or D7100 or higher. I've sold hundreds and hundreds of people their cameras; some people really,really LIKE the mid-level niceties, like the better, bigger viewfinders, and the better control systems, whereas other people value SMALL cameras, sold at lower prices, like the Nikon D3300 for example, or the Canon Rebel series.

 

[coffeefilter]

I've done a lot of camera research in the past few weeks, and it seems to me that if you want Image Quality, go with Nikon. Big, beautiful sensors and lots of lenses.

Canon looked better for high-speed shooting and video, less so for image quality and lens selection.

Pentax, I didn't really look.

To be fair, I'm biased toward Nikon. I started on Nikon and I love the image quality, as well as the ergonomics. I was between a D7000 and D5300. I went with the D5300, btw, for the sensor size/resolution, the high ISO/low noise capability, phase detection autofocus, acceptable video performance and the articulating screen for easier perspective shots.

 

[pez]

If you aren't trying to make a living with photography, and therefore don't necessarily "need" a heavy, large, and expensive FF camera with its expensive stabilized lens system, then Pentax is a viable option. Any K-mount lens made in the last 40 years (Pentax and 3rd party), will function on any current Pentax DSLR, a true money-saver for the enthusiast. Also, any and every lens is stabilized with the sensor-shift in the bodies. Just pointing this out, as there are "very few" Pentax fanboys in here, lol. I believe the 24mp sensor in the Pentax K-3 camera is the same Sony sensor that Nikon uses in the D7100. Here's a comparison of image quality between a K-3 (APS-C) and a D-600 (FF), just for fun. Pentax still lags behind a little in autofocus speed, and Canon probably has the best video capability of the DSLRs, but unless you're a pro sports photographer, I doubt it would matter much to most people. I have several Pentax bodies and a lot of lenses, some of which were built in the 70's, that all work great.

 

[gsgary]

The only digital cameras thats shots look like colour film are Leica digitals they were designed with this in mind

 

[Browncoat]

The only digital cameras thats shots look like colour film are Leica digitals they were designed with this in mind

100% false. Crap like this gets circulated around the internet and posted on photography boards all the time. It's completely baseless.

 

[gsgary]

The only digital cameras thats shots look like colour film are Leica digitals they were designed with this in mind

100% false. Crap like this gets circulated around the internet and posted on photography boards all the time. It's completely baseless.

No Nikon or Canon looks like colour film

 

[Browncoat]

No Nikon or Canon looks like colour film

Subjective, not fact.

Anyone who shoots RAW and is proficient at editing can simulate the look of any type of film.

 

[gsgary]

No Nikon or Canon looks like colour film

Subjective, not fact.

Anyone who shoots RAW and is proficient at editing can simulate the look of any type of film.

It will never look like film

 

[Browncoat]

It will never look like film

You're right there. It looks better than film.

 

[gsgary]

Thats a joke post some and I will let you know

 

[Browncoat]

Quick! Hit the refresh button!

Unless you've seen a side by side comparison, I dunno how you can possibly make that call. I was recently at a street photography workshop where we did just that. A side by side 24" print of a Fuji X100S vs Leica M6 vs Leica M9. The Fuji was hands down the winner, and frankly, just about all of us who attended (65 was the head count) guessed wrong. Almost universally, we all selected the same image because it was clearly superior...but we thought that was the Leica image. Nope. It was the Fuji.

I would put the latest Nikon sensors up against Leica as well. Even the cheaper Nikons. I can't speak to Canon, because I don't know much about them. Leica used to be the cream of the crop, but now it's just a status symbol. You're paying for build quality, for sure. But Leica's days of being king of the image quality hill are over.

Film will always have a certain look that appeals to some people. Definitely. But to say that film is universally better, or that you can't achieve the same look with digital, is not realistic. Not anymore. It sounds like keyboard warrioring, coming from someone who has spent too much time reading forums and old books.

 

[zaroba]

Operator experience is key to getting a good photo.
If I handed a cheap point and shoot to a professional photographer and gave my 15 year old brother who has rarely used a camera a Leica, do you really think the Leica would still have better shots?

Also, do you really think editing can't make a photo look better?
Anything can be done in editing. Just look at modern films that employ CGI.

3rd, it's all a matter of opinion.
What one person likes, and thus thinks is better, wont be what everybody else in the world likes.