Photographer
M E M
Posts: 268
Woodford, Virginia, US
Ok, On my last thread people mentioned cameras other than the one I was wondering about. So Now I am wondering What is the best DSLR for $2000 or less? and Why? I am a lifelong Minolta man, but their DSLR is only 6.1mp. I am trying to see what the best route is. is it worth staying with the Minolta since I already have lenses, flashes, etc? Or is it better to switch? So, tell mw which is the best? or worst? I look forward to the banter!!!!
Photographer
Gary L.
Posts: 306
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
for $2000 or less? D200 and 20D comes to mind.
Photographer
- null -
Posts: 4576
The most important factors in good photography are:
1. The photographer.
2. The lighting.
3. The lens.
4. The camera.
So, don't worry too much about the best camera. People who praise Nikon or Canon or Minolta or whatever are clueless about the importance of the first 3 things on the list. So, they compensate for lack of knowledge, talent and skill by touting brand names. (I can prove it. Go look at my portfolio and look at the quality of what I used to do with a crappy little 3MP point-and-shoot.)
That being said, I agree with Gary L. - in that pricerange, a Canon 20D or a Nikon 200D are about the best you can find. But, really, it's not as important as those other 3 things ...
Photographer
John Paul
Posts: 937
Schenectady, New York, US
Gary L. wrote:
for $2000 or less? D200 and 20D comes to mind. I would agree with that. 
JP
Photographer
Images By Ijumo
Posts: 282
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
The most important factors in good photography are:
1. The photographer.
2. The lighting.
3. The lens.
4. The camera.
So, don't worry too much about the best camera. People who praise Nikon or Canon or Minolta or whatever are clueless about the importance of the first 3 things on the list. So, they compensate for lack of knowledge, talent and skill by touting brand names. (I can prove it. Go look at my portfolio and look at the quality of what I used to do with a crappy little 3MP point-and-shoot.)
That being said, I agree with Gary L. - in that pricerange, a Canon 20D or a Nikon 200D are about the best you can find. But, really, it's not as important as those other 3 things ... I would tend to agree... the most imortant is the skill of the photographer, the lighting available/created, the lens in that order... hingeing the quality of your images on the camera first just puts one in the catagory of GWC.
With that all said I would tend to agree with the other posters on the actual subject in question.. the best cameras in that price range are the Canon 20D or a Nikon 200D.
Photographer
Megs Corner Photography
Posts: 152
Baltimore, Maryland, US
I have a Nikon D70 and although it's not the best or most expensive I love it. I have gotten very attached to it. I feel as though it's not so much the camera as it is the photographer who takes good shots.
Photographer
Paul Brecht
Posts: 12232
Colton, California, US
What do you currently have in your Minolta inventory ???
That might be your determining factor. Rumor has it that Minolta is releasing a Maxxum 9 version digital before too long, although Minolta has always been secretive to the last moment...
Paul
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
Same here either the Canon 20D or the Nikon D200, theres a slightly different market for each, what one may have may not be important for the other.
Best thing you can do if they are very similar to each other in your opinion besides price, is to go into a shop, and actually hold one in your hands. Camera doesnt do you much good if you cant comfortably shoot with it.
( oh and just so you know , I myself would go with a 20D , tho I do find the D200 to be tempting )
Photographer
CarlMaiorinoPhotography
Posts: 1078
New York, New York, US
Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
The most important factors in good photography are:
1. The photographer.
2. The lighting.
3. The lens.
4. The camera.
So, don't worry too much about the best camera. People who praise Nikon or Canon or Minolta or whatever are clueless about the importance of the first 3 things on the list. So, they compensate for lack of knowledge, talent and skill by touting brand names. (I can prove it. Go look at my portfolio and look at the quality of what I used to do with a crappy little 3MP point-and-shoot.)
That being said, I agree with Gary L. - in that pricerange, a Canon 20D or a Nikon 200D are about the best you can find. But, really, it's not as important as those other 3 things ... Truer words were never said...if you need a recommendation, pick the one that feels best in your hand...you'll be shooting with it for a while, it should be something that is comfortable for you...
Photographer
BCADULTART
Posts: 2151
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Hey, I will make you a deal on a Kodak / Nikon DCS 460 (former NASA digital).
Photographer
photosbydmp
Posts: 3808
Shepparton-Mooroopna, Victoria, Australia
get a 7d, it is 6.3 megs, all your minolta gear will work with it, BUT, and i stress but, check it for back focus or forward focus as the models out of the factory prior to the last 6 odd months had a huge problem, the unit i own now is fab, but it took me 3 to get 1 that worked, but hey my minolta gear from 86 works with it no chipping required.
Photographer
Elite Imaging
Posts: 347
Oak Ridge, Florida, US
Terry Breedlove wrote:
Hands down the D200. Prove it!
I'll trade 2 MP for all the noise that thing makes among a few other reasons.
Not to cut down anybodys present from Santa, but I think it's ok as an initial purchase or as a major jump upgrade, but I sure would not get rid of a 20D to run to a Ni-CON job
Hard core Nikon guys will not agree I'm sure.
If I want this kind if image at 1600 I'll shoot film.
![https://home.comcast.net/~digital_photo/dpr/koss_d200_1600_crop_noNR.jpg]()
JMHO
Photographer
Elite Imaging
Posts: 347
Oak Ridge, Florida, US
Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
The most important factors in good photography are:
1. The photographer.
2. The lighting.
3. The lens.
4. The camera. And exactly in that order.
Or maybe:
1. The photographer.
2. The lighting.
3. The photographer.
4. The lens.
5. The photographer.
6. The camera.
Photographer
B R E E D L O V E
Posts: 8022
Forks, Washington, US
Well if you shoot 1600 a lot then buy your film camera however if your like 100% of the photographers I know and shoot at 100 to 400 then the D200 is the way to go. Personally after having three friends complain about their 20D focusing problems you couldn't give me one.
Photographer
Elite Imaging
Posts: 347
Oak Ridge, Florida, US
Terry Breedlove wrote:
Well if you shoot 1600 a lot then buy your film camera however if your like 100% of the photographers I know and shoot at 100 to 400 then the D200 is the way to go. Personally after having three friends complain about their 20D focusing problems you couldn't give me one. Figured it would strike a nerve.
I shoot at 100 most of the time as well, but if I have a situation where I may need 800-1600 then I dont want the noise that shoe box puts out even at 800.
As for your homies with the focus problems,,,,,,The only times I have ever seen a 20D with a focus problem is when they (the owner) had a shit lens or never read the manual overview on how to set up the camera to match the shooting situation.
I'm sure there are the rare instances of a factory defect but if they had consistant focus problems they would not sell very many of them
Shoot long with high contrast or on servo with 9 AF points and that jewel will hunt like a bloodhound, ie never land on a focus point.
It's always easier to blam it on the camera.
Too many people always have to run for the next supposed latest and greatest just because it's the big new buzz.
If they spent more time honing their skills and actually reading the cameras manual they may not have to spend so much time and money chasing the elusive perfect camera.
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
Focusing problems are usually the fault of the photographers who dont quite understand exposure. Its like slaping the kit lens on the front, and expecting it to focus in -2EV lighting conditions when the widest the lens will go is f/3.5.
Something like the 20D does ecceptionally well at ISO 1600 , provided you are using the right kind of lens for the situation ( like say 85mm f/1.8 , 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 , etc )
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
*sigh* it sure didn't take long for the Canon/Nikon pissing match to start did it?
Just because YOU don't like Nikon or Canon doesn't make that brand or model a bad camera. Remember folks, the world rotates around ME, not you.
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
DigitalCMH wrote:
*sigh* it sure didn't take long for the Canon/Nikon pissing match to start did it?
Just because YOU don't like Nikon or Canon doesn't make that brand or model a bad camera. Remember folks, the world rotates around ME, not you. Who started the pissing? I was just talking bout people complaining bout sentivity then saying might as well shoot film ( well more of a film vs digital pissing match )
Photographer
B R E E D L O V E
Posts: 8022
Forks, Washington, US
Something else is going on because they all have the best lenses Canon makes and if you follow the threads in DP review there are hundreds more having the same troubles. I shared a studio with a photographer who used the 10D and then went to the 20 and both of those junkers couldn't focus. He was always finding his best shots out of focus. So maybe that one shot you take at 1600 every three decades will be less grainy but at least mine will be sharp.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Karl Blessing wrote:
Who started the pissing? I was just talking bout people complaining bout sentivity then saying might as well shoot film ( well more of a film vs digital pissing match ) You shouldn't assume I was referring to you...plus, I wrote my message before yours was posted...you happened to click reply before I did so yours showed up in front of mine. 
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
DigitalCMH wrote:
You shouldn't assume I was referring to you...plus, I wrote my message before yours was posted...you happened to click reply before I did so yours showed up in front of mine. Ok hehe. I currently dont have a digital ( the rebel got killed by an idiot ), so been shooting film so I got a pretty good feel for both, so it just strikes me odd for someone to say something like If I wanted to do this I'd shoot film cuz you cant do that on digital, or you cant get that off a canon, or vice versa, so I guess I can snap easily when most people's arguments are often invalid especially some that have no background to support it.
Photographer
Images By Ijumo
Posts: 282
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Terry Breedlove wrote:
Something else is going on because they all have the best lenses Canon makes and if you follow the threads in DP review there are hundreds more having the same troubles. I shared a studio with a photographer who used the 10D and then went to the 20 and both of those junkers couldn't focus. He was always finding his best shots out of focus. So maybe that one shot you take at 1600 every three decades will be less grainy but at least mine will be sharp. 99% of the shots on my port were shot with the 20D.. the only ones that are grainy are the ones that I wanted as such.
Photographer
Elite Imaging
Posts: 347
Oak Ridge, Florida, US
DigitalCMH wrote:
You shouldn't assume I was referring to you...plus, I wrote my message before yours was posted...you happened to click reply before I did so yours showed up in front of mine. Maybe your referring to me?
Couldnt be be, I took a piss before I sat down. I have no more piss.
A difference of opinion does not constitute a pissing match.
Pissing matches are when two or more individuals are being ugly towards each other and are exchanging personal insults.
(also commonly know as slinging shit)
I always thought a Pissing Match was when two or more guys try and see who can pee the furthest.
No pee peeing going on here, just differences in opinions.
Photographer
B R E E D L O V E
Posts: 8022
Forks, Washington, US
Images By Ijumo wrote:
99% of the shots on my port were shot with the 20D.. the only ones that are grainy are the ones that I wanted as such. Yea and this one is out of focus !
![https://img1.modelmayhem.com/051206/22/4396c1814226b.jpg]()
I hope you know I am just teasing ya bit
Photographer
Images By Ijumo
Posts: 282
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Karl Blessing wrote:
Looks like a slight combination of motion blur, with some shallow DOF ( next thing you know photog claims shallow depth of field was intentional ) Of course it was intentional
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
I dont normally critique male model shots, but I'm definitly gona have to agree with Terry on that one. (Though wish the copyright/watermark wernt so bold)
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
MEMasonPhotography wrote:
Ok, On my last thread people mentioned cameras other than the one I was wondering about. So Now I am wondering What is the best DSLR for $2000 or less? and Why? I am a lifelong Minolta man, but their DSLR is only 6.1mp. I am trying to see what the best route is. is it worth staying with the Minolta since I already have lenses, flashes, etc? Or is it better to switch? So, tell mw which is the best? or worst? I look forward to the banter!!!! I'm a Minolta guy, too - and went with the Maxxum 7D because of lenses and accessories.
The only flashes that will work "as designed" on the 7D are the 5600 and 3600. You can use older Maxxum flashes, but you will have to set exposure manually.
So far, I've gotten good results with the camera and 6.1 mp has proven adequate (I was worried about that when I shopping, too.) I think the 6.1 is a nice balance in performance and file size. If you're going to do huge art prints you might want to consider something a bit beefier in the megapixel department.
One plus is that the prices have dropped considerably for the 7D. The new 5D is an option, too (cheaper build quality and fewer "bells and whistles".) I'm not sure if the 5D has a sync terminal, though.
Of course, you have to weigh the value of a 6.1 mp camera when there are cams out there with twice that. *shrugs*
Photographer
Master Image Photograph
Posts: 458
Rancho Santa Margarita, California, US
Elite Imaging wrote:
And exactly in that order.
Or maybe:
1. The photographer.
2. The lighting.
3. The photographer.
4. The lens.
5. The photographer.
6. The camera. I partley disagree-
You can have a great camera, a great lense and a great photographer-
It depends I guess on what defines the photographer-
I guess assuming that the photographer has an eye and the ability to see something in order to make a photograph- just because a person picks up a camera, and points it at something, and clicks the shutter....does that make them a photographer- or is that what society has defined us as?
"capture the emotion, the moment in time, action" none of these factors matter, if the image does nothing for anyone-
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25351
Santa Barbara, California, US
MEMasonPhotography wrote:
Ok, On my last thread people mentioned cameras other than the one I was wondering about. So Now I am wondering What is the best DSLR for $2000 or less? and Why? I am a lifelong Minolta man, but their DSLR is only 6.1mp. I am trying to see what the best route is. is it worth staying with the Minolta since I already have lenses, flashes, etc? Or is it better to switch? So, tell mw which is the best? or worst? I look forward to the banter!!!! I don't understand why you don't just get a minolta digital 5d or 7d (it is digital that you're going for?)
If you have good minolta prime glass then just go that route. if all you have are the throwaway lenses and you feel like you want to go with a bigger name then go that route.
It really depends on what you plan on doing with your work.
Photographer
M E M
Posts: 268
Woodford, Virginia, US
KM von Seidl wrote:
I don't understand why you don't just get a minolta digital 5d or 7d (it is digital that you're going for?)
If you have good minolta prime glass then just go that route. if all you have are the throwaway lenses and you feel like you want to go with a bigger name then go that route.
It really depends on what you plan on doing with your work. I do very large prints of portrait work so I want something with a little more than 6mp. Now if they are coming out with a Maxxum 9D then I would totally hold out for it. Unfortunately getting any info is impossible. I can't wait another year, but I dont want to rebuild my arsonal. If there is any proof of and time frame for a step up from the 7D, then I am all geared up.
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25351
Santa Barbara, California, US
MEMasonPhotography wrote:
I do very large prints of portrait work so I want something with a little more than 6mp. Now if they are coming out with a Maxxum 9D then I would totally hold out for it. Unfortunately getting any info is impossible. I can't wait another year, but I dont want to rebuild my arsonal. If there is any proof of and time frame for a step up from the 7D, then I am all geared up. is the 9d going to be a full frame sensor? do full frame sensor allow very large prints? I'm not really familiar with digital, what size output are you going for?
maybe a medium format is what you need.
Photographer
Gary L.
Posts: 306
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Terry Breedlove wrote:
Well if you shoot 1600 a lot then buy your film camera however if your like 100% of the photographers I know and shoot at 100 to 400 then the D200 is the way to go. Personally after having three friends complain about their 20D focusing problems you couldn't give me one. not really trying to make this a Canon vs Nikon debate...
but I use to shoot Nikon, and they do have their fair share of problems. If you go on DPReview, and check out the Nikon forums, you will see people bitching about thier new cameras.
The most common problem i see with ALL DSLR BRANDS is focusing issue. Some are user error, some are lens problems, and others are body related, some are all them combined. But the body always get the blame. People don't like to be told that they aren't using a camera correctly. people don't like to think that their $1200 lens can actually back/front focus.
My feelings with Canon is mixed. their service is great, the promise to fix and return your gear back to you in 10days (less time for pros). When my 70-200 L was front focussing, i only lost it for a week. Not the same with Nikon, weeks was more of a reality. however, Canon gear does seem to suffer more from bugs, and that's because they are always updating their technology, such as new AF systems. But they are good at rolling out fixes and servicing your stuff, so for that i'm happy. After all, they are like the only company capable of building a DSLR totally in house. Even Nikon has to turn to Sony to get the CCD/CMOS.
Photographer
antonio66
Posts: 45
Palermo, Sicily, Italy
Photographer
Elite Imaging
Posts: 347
Oak Ridge, Florida, US
Master Image Photograph wrote:
I partley disagree-
You can have a great camera, a great lense and a great photographer-
It depends I guess on what defines the photographer-
I guess assuming that the photographer has an eye and the ability to see something in order to make a photograph- just because a person picks up a camera, and points it at something, and clicks the shutter....does that make them a photographer- or is that what society has defined us as?
"capture the emotion, the moment in time, action" none of these factors matter, if the image does nothing for anyone- Agreed,
Actually each of the photographer notations was meant to stand for the different creative aspects of the photographer along the way.
It's very simple and just like the guy who buys a 2000 dollar stereo and puts a set of WalMart speakers on it, or the other way around.
If any one component is missing you have nothing.
Creativity has alot of latitude for interpretation but if any of the basic elements are missing you got squat.
Art, it's a funny thing aint it?
Photographer
Images By Ijumo
Posts: 282
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Karl Blessing wrote:
I dont normally critique male model shots, but I'm definitly gona have to agree with Terry on that one. (Though wish the copyright/watermark wernt so bold) I started placing my watermark strategically across the image because I have had a number of my images stolen from this site, my unobtrusive watermark cropped off and then some other phrase pasted over my image. Now if they really want my image it will take more work to remove my watermark. Im hate that it has come to this because I would prefer not to have to disfigure my images online but it is the price I have to pay to make it harder to steal.
ps. Thanks for the kind words on my shot
Photographer
Jared Anderson Photo
Posts: 8
Blue Springs, Missouri, US
20D period. I think the colors are more accurate on a Canon right out of the camera and obviously the higher ISO's hold up better. The D200 is probably a great camera too but I wouldnt trade my 20d for one. Nikons service is TERRIBLE and that in itself is enough to sway me away from the Niokons (I shot Nikon for 10 years). Just my 2 cents. Really I dont think you could go wrong with either camera though. Unless you already have a bunch of Nikon glass I would seriously consider the 20D. Just for the record I have NEVER had any focus problems with mine and I shoot a lot of sports as well. Just use L glass and you wont ever be dissatified.
|
