Best digital cameras ~$1000?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Jeßus - 05 Sep 2008 05:11 GMT

(Might prove to be a constructive/useful thread - you never know!)

My (somewhat aging) Nikon 5400's focusing on anything but wide angle is
not the best - more often than not, everything is out of focus.

So it seems like a good time to buy a new camera... the Nikon is about 5
years old now anyway.

Budget-wise, I suppose around $800-$1200.

Looking for suggestions on the best SLR and non-SLR digitals within that
price range.

I really liked the 5400, as it offers full manual control (this is
important)and was still fairly compact.

I'm leaning towards an SLR - if only for lens interchangeability but
will still consider non-SLR models with the right features.

TIA

Reply to this Message

Noons - 05 Sep 2008 13:11 GMT

Jeßus wrote,on my timestamp of 5/09/2008 2:11 PM:

> Budget-wise, I suppose around $800-$1200.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I'm leaning towards an SLR - if only for lens interchangeability but
> will still consider non-SLR models with the right features.

Just got this one:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/events/F6%20small.jpg
and I am veeeery happy!

Just kidding. I suppose you're in Australia?
If so, then try one of the online resellers: they
do good prices and offer usually a one year warranty
required by law. I got my d80 that way and it hasn't
missed a beat since.
dslrs at that price range, quite a few with kit
lenses. What makes a dslr a good idea is the possibility
of multiple lenses. If you are not planning on going
for that at all, then just skip dslrs and go for a Fuji S100
or similar. Plenty of material to look at in dpreview
and other sites.

Reply to this Message

Jeßus - 06 Sep 2008 01:27 GMT

> Jeßus wrote,on my timestamp of 5/09/2008 2:11 PM:
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Just kidding. I suppose you're in Australia?

Yep, Australia.

> If so, then try one of the online resellers: they
> do good prices and offer usually a one year warranty
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> or similar. Plenty of material to look at in dpreview
> and other sites.

I'll shop around - I'm leaning much more towards an dSLR for the reasons
you have outlined. Most of my film cameras were Contax SLRs - but I know
better than even look at any digitals Contax may make due to the cost...
I used to be quite serious about my photography years ago but not so
these days (thankfully), so something like a nice, basic dSLR and a
couple of lenses should see me right.

Cheers

Reply to this Message

Noons - 06 Sep 2008 04:19 GMT

Jeßus wrote,on my timestamp of 6/09/2008 10:27 AM:

> I'll shop around - I'm leaning much more towards an dSLR for the reasons
> you have outlined. Most of my film cameras were Contax SLRs - but I know
> better than even look at any digitals Contax may make due to the cost...
> I used to be quite serious about my photography years ago but not so
> these days (thankfully), so something like a nice, basic dSLR and a
> couple of lenses should see me right.

Heaps of good stuff around. There are good kits from
Pentax, Nikon, Canon and Oly. Even Sony is getting into
the kit game. Same basic rules apply as back in the film
days: if you're going for a system slr, pick the lens system
first then the camera body. Any of the brands I mentioned
fall into that category, with pixel-peeper level differences
between them, quite frankly.

If I had to nitpick between them, I'd say Pentax does a good
job with raw and lousy with jpg, Oly is the opposite and has very
good but very expensive lenses, Canon has utter crap cheapo stuff
and rip snorting good - but expensive - top of the line, Nikon
has very good bodies while still improving on lenses while Sony
has the best lenses in the Zeiss range - at a clear price
premium. And before anyone else jumps in, don't forget Sigma
with the foveon sensor: still one of the best ideas for digital.
There: just to make it easy for you! :)

Seriously: go to a big dealer and get to handle examples
of each of the above, pick two or three. Then go to
dpreview or cameralabs and see the details of each of those.
Then pick the one you feel comfortable with. Go out and
make lots of photos: hope it works out for you.
;)

Reply to this Message

Doug Jewell - 07 Sep 2008 11:49 GMT

> Heaps of good stuff around. There are good kits from
> Pentax, Nikon, Canon and Oly. Even Sony is getting into
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> fall into that category, with pixel-peeper level differences
> between them, quite frankly.

I'll second that - they are all good cameras these days -
range of lenses is probably the key difference.

> If I had to nitpick between them, I'd say Pentax does a good
> job with raw and lousy with jpg,

Good thing about Pentax/Samsung (same thing just rebadged)
is that the kit lenses are better than other brands.
Pentax/Samsung is the only kit 18-55 that doesn't have a
rotating front element, has a metal mount, has a hood with
recess for adjusting polarisers. Optically it's a solid
performer for a kit lens too. There's a lot to like about
the Pentax kit. The cameras are well featured for the price.
Autofocus is a little on the slow side (compared to Canon
for example), but is very accurate. The bodies are very
customisable and handle extremely well.

>Oly is the opposite and has very
> good but very expensive lenses,

My main dislike of the Oly gear is that it is technically at
a dead end because of the small sensor. This will always
keep it one step behind the other brands which have larger
sensors. Oly cameras have more noise at higher ISO's than
the others. I'm not impressed with their menuing system and
performance either.

>Canon has utter crap cheapo stuff
> and rip snorting good - but expensive - top of the line,

I wouldn't say the cheap stuff is utter crap - it's not
fantastic sure but I wouldn't say utter crap. The cameras
themselves, even at entry level, are quite well featured.
Probably the only lens I'd call utter crap is the standard
18-55 kit lens. Get the 18-55IS though and it is quite
acceptible (although still with annoying rotating front
element, and plastic mount).

>Nikon
> has very good bodies while still improving on lenses while

I would say forget about any Nikon body below the D80. The
D40/D40x/D60 take ok photos, but they are so badly crippled
that I would steer well clear. They can only use auto-focus
on a handful of lenses, and lack key features such as
exposure bracketing. D80 upwards though are very good cameras.

>Sony
> has the best lenses in the Zeiss range - at a clear price
> premium.

Sony bodies are quite solidly made, and very well featured
for the money. There is a slightly limited choice of lenses
though. Oh and BTW, there are only 4 Zeiss lenses for Sony
(and of those 4, it would appear that at least the 85/1.4 -
probably others - is actually a Minolta design). There are
more Zeiss lenses available in Nikon and Pentax mounts than
in Sony mount.

>And before anyone else jumps in, don't forget Sigma
> with the foveon sensor: still one of the best ideas for digital.
> There: just to make it easy for you! :)

The concept of Foveon has potential, but current
implementations leave a lot to be desired. Plus, regardless
of the sensor, the Sigma SLRs have a few other warts in
their operation.

> Seriously: go to a big dealer and get to handle examples
> of each of the above, pick two or three. Then go to
> dpreview or cameralabs and see the details of each of those.
> Then pick the one you feel comfortable with. Go out and
> make lots of photos: hope it works out for you.

I agree with this - don't spend too much time measurebating
over the specs. All current cameras have a few areas where
they fall short of perfection, but at the same time they
will all deliver excellent results. I would consider how it
feels in the hand and how it feels for you, to be a far more
important consideration than whether it's better than some
other brand by some poofteenth of a measurement.

> ;)

Reply to this Message

Noons - 07 Sep 2008 13:41 GMT

Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 7/09/2008 8:49 PM:

> Good thing about Pentax/Samsung (same thing just rebadged) is that the
> kit lenses are better than other brands. Pentax/Samsung is the only kit
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> on the slow side (compared to Canon for example), but is very accurate.
> The bodies are very customisable and handle extremely well.

Pentax and Samsung seem to have same bodies, but the lenses
in the case of the Samsung get the Schneider-K label.
Are they really different - as in high quality S-K - in the
Samsung or is it just a label?

> money. There is a slightly limited choice of lenses though. Oh and BTW,
> there are only 4 Zeiss lenses for Sony (and of those 4, it would appear
> that at least the 85/1.4 - probably others - is actually a Minolta

Yeah, but I'd kill for those 4! :)
Been playing around with a Sonnar 180/2.8 and
a Flekkie 50/4 on 6X6 and the darn things are
absolutely mind-blowing. Will post some examples
on the Sonnar later. I'm getting totally sold on
this Zeiss stuff. Only Leica makes better stuff,
IMHO but it hurts the wallet big time!

Thanx for the additional comments.

Reply to this Message

Doug Jewell - 08 Sep 2008 02:21 GMT

> Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 7/09/2008 8:49 PM:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Are they really different - as in high quality S-K - in the
> Samsung or is it just a label?

The samsung lenses are identical to the Pentax lenses except
for the text written on them and the colour of the stripe on
the body (Pentax Green, Samsung Blue), and _possibly_ in the
anti-flare coatings (my pentax branded stuff gives a vibe of
being a little more flare resistant than the samsung branded
stuff, but I haven't scientifically tested it). The SK name
is just that, a name. Mind you, even the kit lenses are
probably worthy of the SK name - they aren't stellar
performers, but considering the price bracket they are
playing in, optically they outperform all of the other
budget kit lenses, and the build quality is superb. You pay
many times the price to get equivalent build quality in
anything else.

Reply to this Message

rb - 07 Sep 2008 13:51 GMT

[snip]

>> Seriously: go to a big dealer and get to handle examples
>> of each of the above, pick two or three. Then go to
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> than some other brand by some poofteenth of a measurement.
>> ;)

so for someone with legacy MF nikon glass, who doesn't want to put out
the readies for a full frame sensor D3, how does something like the Fuji
S5 Pro stack up against it's Nikon equivalent?

rb

Reply to this Message

Noons - 07 Sep 2008 15:04 GMT

rb wrote,on my timestamp of 7/09/2008 10:51 PM:

> so for someone with legacy MF nikon glass, who doesn't want to put out
> the readies for a full frame sensor D3, how does something like the Fuji
> S5 Pro stack up against it's Nikon equivalent?

you gonna open up a can of worms with that one!

If you listen to dpreview, it's worthless.
If you listen to anyone who has actually used it,
it's one of the best things since sliced bread.
go figure?

have a look at Thom Hogan's review: his is probably
the best balanced out there. I'd say: a 6MP camera
on steroids. But which can handle highlights like
no other camera can. Is it worth the switch from
a D200? For me, no. For wedding photographers,
apparently so: they are by far the biggest buyers of
the thing because of the excellent skin tones.

I'd look at a D200 - runout prices soon - or even
cough up for a D300? epay for a D700?

Reply to this Message

rb - 12 Sep 2008 13:45 GMT

> rb wrote,on my timestamp of 7/09/2008 10:51 PM:
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> I'd look at a D200 - runout prices soon - or even
> cough up for a D300? epay for a D700?

cheers, the article made for an interesting read.

rb

Reply to this Message

Jeßus - 08 Sep 2008 05:34 GMT

>> Heaps of good stuff around. There are good kits from
>> Pentax, Nikon, Canon and Oly. Even Sony is getting into
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I'll second that - they are all good cameras these days - range of
> lenses is probably the key difference.

Quite a few years have passed now, so I suppose the technology has
matured to the point where they're all quite good now.

>> If I had to nitpick between them, I'd say Pentax does a good
>> job with raw and lousy with jpg,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> on the slow side (compared to Canon for example), but is very accurate.
> The bodies are very customisable and handle extremely well.

That is useful info to me, as I was never much of a Pentax fan in the
'old' days. I also still like to use polarisers, so based on what you
say, this is another plus for Pentax these days.

The only thing that bothers me is what Noons says about Pentax and jpg
quality.

<snip>

> I would say forget about any Nikon body below the D80. The D40/D40x/D60
> take ok photos, but they are so badly crippled that I would steer well
> clear. They can only use auto-focus on a handful of lenses, and lack key
> features such as exposure bracketing. D80 upwards though are very good
> cameras.

Hmm... noted!

<snip>

> I agree with this - don't spend too much time measurebating over the
> specs. All current cameras have a few areas where they fall short of
> perfection, but at the same time they will all deliver excellent
> results. I would consider how it feels in the hand and how it feels for
> you, to be a far more important consideration than whether it's better
> than some other brand by some poofteenth of a measurement.

Thanks for the input :)

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 08 Sep 2008 10:00 GMT

>All current cameras have a few areas where
> they fall short of perfection, but at the same time they
> will all deliver excellent results. I would consider how it
> feels in the hand and how it feels for you, to be a far more
> important consideration than whether it's better than some
> other brand by some poofteenth of a measurement.

And even more so, I would say it depends far more on how you use it, just
how good your actual photo's will be.
Many photographers can instantly turn the greatest camera into a "piece of
junk".

MrT.

Reply to this Message

Jeßus - 08 Sep 2008 05:27 GMT

> Jeßus wrote,on my timestamp of 6/09/2008 10:27 AM:
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> make lots of photos: hope it works out for you.
> ;)

Thanks for the detailed reply Noons.

That is a bit of a worry what you say about Pentax and the way it
handles jpg, as thats the format I use 95% of the time. Something to
look into...

I have none of my old film gear anymore (wish I kept all the
Contax/Zeiss gear in hindsight) so can consider any of brands.

Cheers

Reply to this Message

Noons - 08 Sep 2008 14:45 GMT

Jeßus wrote,on my timestamp of 8/09/2008 2:27 PM:

> That is a bit of a worry what you say about Pentax and the way it
> handles jpg, as thats the format I use 95% of the time. Something to
> look into...

Keep both raw and jpeg - I think pentax can do that - for
those 5% when you really need the raw because you're not happy
with the in-camera jpg.

Note: I said the differences are really in the "nit-pick" or
"pixel-peeper" territory. dpreview has some good examples
of the possible problems with in-camera jpg. Unless those become
a real worry for you, I wouldn't fuss too much.

> I have none of my old film gear anymore (wish I kept all the
> Contax/Zeiss gear in hindsight) so can consider any of brands.

you naughty boy!
;)

Reply to this Message