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!!!!

Others have made suggestions--Minolta, Canon, Nikon, etc--but it comes down to some issues you haven't mentioned.

1. Will you be shooting a lot of low-light? If so, Canons tend to have (much) lower noise at high ISO. On the other hand, Nikons in that price range tend to focus more easily. Minolta's built-in anti-shake (image stabilization/vibration reduction/whatever) helps there for shutter-speed stability, but not stopping subject action. (It's a very annoying set of trade-offs!)

2. If you're not shooting low-light heavily, all of them can give excellent results. I've printed 30x40 prints of individual models, and many 20x30's of small groups and environmental portraits from Canon's older D60 (6 megapixel). The trick in all cases is good exposure, focus, sufficient shutter speed, and proper "processing" (In-camera contrast/saturation/sharpness settings, RAW conversion, sharpening, resizing, etc., as appropriate)

3. What are the important issues to you? Image quality? Burst speed (FPS)? Size of burst? Auto-flash control? Response time? Focus speed? Ergonomic fit for your hands/eyes? (Don't discount this last; it's surprisingly important, especially if you're NOT using the camera for days on-end.)

4. How elaborate a system do you anticipate needing? Ultra-wide and/or fisheye? Super-ultra-zowie telephoto? Remote controls, wireless data transfer, tethered shooting, etc? Each brand has advantages/disadvantages in these areas, and individual cameras may or may not have the specific features you want.

Canon's Rebel XT and 20D are very nice cameras. The Rebel isn't as robust (rarely an issue), and the controls a little less immediate for some functions, but it's a great camera at the price. You could use the extra for other lenses or just save it. The 20D is a little more responsive, with the same image quality.

Nikons D70s and D200 are also very nice. Their image quality is at least as good as Canon's at low ISO, but noisier at high ISO.

K-M's 7D can get great photos as well. (I've seen results from other photographers, but haven't used the camera myself) If you do use on-camera/hot-shoe flashes, you may need an adapter to use anything but the K-M style ones, but that's not expensive (just annoying). The built-in anti-shake is nice.

In other words...none of the major players make BAD cameras. The trick is finding the one that works best for what YOU do.

I do very large prints of portrait work so I want something with a little more than 6mp.

See above. Except for large groups (15+ people), you can make surprisingly good large prints from 6 MP, though each extra pixel does help for detail.

(41)

Elite Imaging wrote:
No pee peeing going on here, just differences in opinions.

I dunno...sounds like you had a little pee in your pee pee.

Elite Imaging wrote:
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.

  it's ok to have a pissing match.  Just don't get mad when it runs down your leg.

antonio66 wrote:
eos 5d!

there you have it..the best camera under $2000, costs over $2000.00

Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
The most important factors in good photography are:

1. The photographer.
2. The lighting.
3. The lens.
4. The camera.

... in that order.

antonio66 wrote:
eos 5d!

Doug Swinskey wrote:
there you have it..the best camera under $2000, costs over $2000.00

Where are they on sale?
I'll buy 60 to start...

MEMasonPhotography wrote:
It sounds like its mostly a matter of preferance. Every maker has its pros and cons, its just a matter of what you are comfortable with. I really appreciate the debate. It has really helped me make a decision. I think I will stick with my Minoltas. I know there are better out there, but not in my affordability range. I think I will go with the 7D and anticipate an even better version in the future (9D maybe?). Thank you all

Buy what you can afford and think long term. Does the Minolta have interchangable lens's?

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.

You might want to check out Geniune Fractiels.  I misspelled it but it really
helps with large prints.  If you want it let me know.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
You might want to check out Geniune Fractiels.  I misspelled it but it really
helps with large prints.  If you want it let me know.

Or PhotoZoom Pro.  The S-Spline II algorithm is visibly superior than GF (tested to be so as well).  I made a 3 foot poster out of a 6mp RAW file once, quite impressive.

Craig Thomson wrote:
Buy what you can afford and think long term. Does the Minolta have interchangable lens's?

Well the 7D has come down to only $1000. Yes it is an interchangable lens system and I already have several lenses.

lll wrote:
>

my bad..i missed it in the title...

MEMasonPhotography wrote:
It sounds like its mostly a matter of preferance. Every maker has its pros and cons, its just a matter of what you are comfortable with. I really appreciate the debate. It has really helped me make a decision. I think I will stick with my Minoltas. I know there are better out there, but not in my affordability range. I think I will go with the 7D and anticipate an even better version in the future (9D maybe?). Thank you all

I have Minolta gear.  A 650 something film I still mainly use.  As a gift I got a minolta 5d.  I've had to sell off some of my great minolta glass (85 1.4, 35 1.4) but the 100 macro is as good as any glass I've used.  so was the 85 and 35.  minolta's good glass has great bokeh, something I actually admittedly look for my lenses.  But if you want to do sports photography with a wide range of longer lenses then canon or nikon might be best.  That's one reason why I asked you what kind of work you wanted to do and what kind of glass you owned.

MEMasonPhotography wrote:

Well the 7D has come down to only $1000. Yes it is an interchangable lens system and I already have several lenses.

Well there is your answer.
You would dump a boatload of money on new lenses, stick with what you got.