What camera to get?
 

Ok so we have a digital camera that takes pretty good images. However I am going to be getting into photography on the professional level like I was before. I have several manual films cameras that I became very good with. I want to move on though, and not sure where to go.

What I am needing is a recommendation for a manual digital camera that I can use for my portrait photography. Preferably something that has little or no lag time between shots. Most of my subjects will be children and I need to be able to capture their quick movements.

Thanks in advance.

I have had a Canon 20D for a couple of years now and it's awesome

It has had a couple of updates since and I'm not sure what the latest version is. I just sold a Canon Rebel digital and that was really nice too.

Most of the digital SLR's have no lag time at all; certainly my 20D doesn't.

A friend of mine has the Nikon D50 - he likes it and I see nothing wrong with the shots he's taken.

I just bought a Canon 40D which is a 2nd generation follow-on to the 20D. I like the camera a lot. It's a big improvement over the Digital Rebel I had.

My brother has a Nikon D200 which is also quite nice, and roughly equal to the 40D. I think the D200 is still more expensive than the 40D.

Nikon is just now releasing the D300 which is their follow-on to the D200.

I suggest looking at the detailed reviews on dpreview.com for these and other DSLR.

Canon XTi if you're just getting started with dSLR. If you want to push more money into it, get a used 5D or 20D. The camera is generally less important than the glass. For portrait photography, get a good lens. Also, are you doing studio portraits? What kind of lighting do you plan to get? For pro portraits, these things are equally important to the body, or moreso.

Yes I will be needing a good lens also! Most portraits will be outside, as this is where I do my best work. Lighting does not concern me right now as I have no issues there. I have no studio access at this time.

I like Sony, but I'm not anywhere near as experience with cameras as a lot of our talented members/photographers, so take my recommendation with a grain of salt: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W80. It's simple, got plenty of features, and gets the job done for me. I've never needed more than 7.2 mp, and the LCD is gorgeous.

What's your budget? For around $1000 if you shop around, you can get a Rebel XTi ($600ish) with its kit lens, an EF 50mm-f/1.8 lens, ($75, and if you're doing portraits, you'll never take it off...best kept 'secret' in digital photography), and the extended battery/portrait handle ($200), and a good camera bag. I've got that setup plus a 75-300mm stabilized zoom lens, and there's very few situations I can't handle.

What film system did you shoot with? Will your old lens' be compatable with a new digital rig?

That was a big factor with me staying Nikon. But, if you're starting from scratch, take the dogs advice about dpreview.

Or, take my advice and buy a Nikon D200. You'll fall in love with photography all over again......:thumbsup:

Paddyjoe is right, it's possible that your old lenses will work with a digital camera so you should take that into account.

I would recommend the d200, I've had great results with it both in the studio and on location. I also have Nikon's 105 Macro lens.. I think it's an f5.6 or so..don't feel like finding it at the moment. That's a good lens for portraits.

The thing I like is going to the local camera store where they let me play with the cameras and lenses so I can get a feel for them. I'd suggest you find a place where you can do that and once you've narrowed it down from a technical standpoint you can make a decision based off how it feels in your hands.

From what I've read on the D300, if I was in the market to upgrade from my D50, I'd go with it. Cost is approximately $1800 for the body. Right now, I'm more interested in new glass.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm

...but like PaddyJoe says, it's a good idea to see if your old lenses can work with a new digital body, especially if you have professional quality stuff.

OK thats everyone. I do have several Minolta lenses with my old set up. I am doing some research about matching them to a new body.

If your old lenses are Minolta then you should probably consider the Sony A700 body for about $1,400 or it's older sibling the Sony a100 for about $600

Wow that Sony looks pretty nice, better then the Minolta Maxxxum D I was looking at. It says it is compatible with Minolta A-type bayonet mount autofocus lenses. How do I know if these are the ones I have?

The A-type Bayonet mount was introduced by Minolta in 1985 as the world's first autofocus system. Is your equipement newer than 1985?

Probably the easiest way to know, would be to search for your camera model online and make sure that it has the A-type Bayonet mount. I think that would be easier than searching for the lenses.

You could also stop into a camera shop that sells the Sony, and see if you lense mounts.. Plus that would give you a chance to play with the camera... :)

Good idea, sometimes the simple solution evades me!

No, my stuff is way older then 1985 I am sure it will probably work. Do you own the Sony?

Did you mean that your stuff is way newer and should work, or way older and won't work?

No I don't own the sony... here is another thread for you to read...

When I bought my DSLR the Canon was the only one under $1k. I still have that Digital Rebel with the 28-135 IS, and 75-300 IS lenses. I really didn't like the kit lense.

I'll be upgrading to the 40D this year. (unless the 5D prices comes down, when they introduce the Mark II) And buying the Canon 85mm prime lens for portraits. I really like my Canon, and went that way because of the Canon lens options...

Yes I meant way newer. Sorry I have been very scatterbrained lately!

Thanks also for pointing me in the direction of that thread, a lot of good info there.

the Canon 85/1.8 lens is GREAT. But remember on a 1.6x crop factor body, it's pretty narrow for portraits. Outdoors I guess it's fine (it is by FAR my favorite lens), but for outdoors it might be nice to have a zoom lens even for portraits. *shrug*

I have a Sigma EF 28-105 lens on my camera here in Afghanistan and it's quite versatile. It's no "L" lens by any means, but it's pretty handy (and small... and light...). If you DO prefer a prime lens, the 85/1.8 really is probably the best bang for the buck. A 50mm or wider may be better for a 1.6x body for portraits though.

I recently bought a Canon DSRL Rebel XT. Its about $499. But I have been very impressed with the pictures I have taken with it.

If you really want to get back into professionalism, Canon 5D is where you need to start. Get some nice L-quality lenses too and a 50/1.4

If your budget can take it, 1D mk II/III if you do sports & stuff, 1Ds mk II/III for others.

Myself I'm currently looking at field-type medium format gear for some landscape work. Film... digital medium backs are way out of my budget, and I can anyway get close to 100mpix worth of usable data out of the scans.

I'd say Canon is a good option. I just got my new Canon PowerShot SD850 IS for a few weeks, I think it is a great little convenient camera, which is able to be concealed easily, and taken about anywhere because it easily slips into a purse or pocket. Here is some more specs and reviews http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/d...sp?newsID=3109
I got if at a deal price of $241, you can look up
http://www.dealstudio.com/searchdeals.php?deal_id=71942
It's also a great camera for taking indoor portraits with flash, as well as outdoor photos.

I have a Nikon D80 and absolutely love it. I'ts got 90% of the features of a D200 at 60% of the price.

What did you decide on *Nikki*

Interesting thread - I'm also looking for a dSLR, having tapped out my PHD camera's capabilities. I really like night/low-light shooting, so I'm going to have to get some good glass...

Any recommendations for a camera body / lens that handles low-light well? I suppose that the quality of the CCD/sensor makes a great deal of difference here.

Also, I hear that the dSLR bodies don't shoot the same "proportions" as a 35mm body. What should I be looking for in this area?

Well if you want to shoot low-light, you'll want a camera with good high ISO performance as well as fast glass. Not sure what your budget is. If you have no budget at all, the Canon 5D and Canon 1D mkIII have the best ISO performance, as does the Nikon D3. I haven't used the D3 myself, though sample images look nice. I own both the 5D and 1D and both are spectacular. As for extremely fast glass, you'll be buying fixed focal lengths lens, such as the 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 etc etc. Unfortunately Canon makes no zoom lens faster than 2.8. I believe Olympus is the only make that makes a zoom lens faster than 2.8, but I have no experience with them.

If you are into the whole rangefinder deal, and have an unlimited budget, get a Leica M8 and a Leica Noctilux. I have that combo and the pictures and low light capabilities are absolutely stunning.

On a budget... check out the Canon 40D or Nikon D300 and get some less expensive primes (50 1.4, 28 1.8 etc etc). Hope that helps.

As far as good, cheap, lo-light lenses, the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens is awesome and at around $100 the price can't be beat.

Also, as far as your "proportions" question: most digital sensors are somewhat smaller than 35mm film, so there is a 1.5X crop factor on images shot with the same lens compared to film cameras. In other words, a 50mm lens on a DSLR would produce the same image as a 75mm lens on a film SLR. Just something to keep in mind when selecting lenses...