I could use dSLR buying advice. Is it generally worth the wait?

[cparka23]

I've been thinking of getting a dSLR for 3 years. I've played with a couple consumer dSLRs that belonged to some friends, read a couple books, and follow occasionally on dpreview. So, I'm not a total novice but probably only a couple steps above, which I attribute to lack of much hands-on experience.

With that out of the way, I was wondering what dSLR owners are thinking. Do you feel that cameras depreciate too quickly in terms of performance/features when compared to the latest offerings? Or is it worth the investment to pay the premium for newly released equipment? Yes, I realize these are subjective. I'm trying to pick your brain for a personal opinion, please.

The reason I ask is because I'm looking for a full-frame CaNikon. I've eyeballed the D700 but the price of the 5D is attractive now ahead of photokina. I'm also considering waiting until after photokina to see if a 5D mkII is on the horizon. I think the 5D mkII would probably be cheaper than the D700, and you can't argue with the low noise.

begin the brand debate

 

[Paintguru]

Actually I think DSLRs are very slow to depreciate. I mean, in the end, a camera is just a sensor that counts photons. The most important part of these guys is the glass, which is basically timeless. I've had my D70s for a while now and I have no interest in upgrading to anything better. I mean, if you are a pro and NEED all these features and stuff, then fine, but for the pro-sumer, I think body replacement is not something that should happen very often. May I ask why you feel the need to go to such a high end camera like the full-frames or D700? Again, personally, I would use that money on glass.

 

[EliteReefs]

I dont have a ton to add since i am new to the SLR's but i will say that i just purchased a canon 40D and like said above I cant imagine i would ever need anything better. the lens choice so so huge this camera can do just about anything.

I asked alot of question ebfore buying and i was told more then once that i would take just as goot of picture with a reble XT as i can with the 40D. it seems to be more about the lens and person behind the camera then the camera itself.

the only reason i went from the rebel like to the 40D was i wanted the better built camera. no plastics higher MP.

with that said if i had the money last week i would have went even higher. I am a beliver in by the very best you can afford the first time. this way is if i happen to want all the crap the best has to offer someday i will be glad i bought it. I only bought a middle of the road quality camera and will i ever use all the features that even the 40D offers? i highly doubt it. I sure like knowing i can though lol

 

[surfn]

Actually I think DSLRs are very slow to depreciate. I mean, in the end, a camera is just a sensor that counts photons. The most important part of these guys is the glass, which is basically timeless. I've had my D70s for a while now and I have no interest in upgrading to anything better. I mean, if you are a pro and NEED all these features and stuff, then fine, but for the pro-sumer, I think body replacement is not something that should happen very often. May I ask why you feel the need to go to such a high end camera like the full-frames or D700? Again, personally, I would use that money on glass.

+1

if you are new to dSLR's, there really is no good reason to spend lots of money of a full frame one yet. instead, get a cheaper body (like XSi or 40D), and save your money for some nice glass.

 

[cparka23]

Thanks, Paintguru. Part of the reason why I want a full-frame is because I didn't like the 1.5-1.6x factor on lenses. Also, I forgot to mention that my dad used to have an old SLR, which was stolen from their house awhile back when I was in school so I never got to play with it. We still have a lens or two handy though. It would be nice if I could use them, but I'm not sold on Nikon just yet.

EliteReefs, well put on everything you've said. I've been told the same thing about the camera operator being as important, if not more so, than the camera. That's why I've been reading up beforehand to make sure that I don't buy an SLR when I only have the aptitude for a point and shoot. There are enough picture threads with $5K cameras and no white balance. Lol.

 

[JuniorMC8704]

Just repeating what was already said, but also note something about the D700. If you are thinking about buying a Full Frame Nikon, that means you are going to only be able to buy VERY high end glass. Which is great if money isn't an issue, but keep in mine that most of the lenses wouldn't be appropriate for that setup.

I would strongly recommend the XSI, and if you can swing the extra cash, go with the 40D.

If you are hooked on Nikon, and want to go a little crazy, get a D300.

The XSI and 40D are going to be more beginner friendly than the D300 as there is no auto feature.

If you have detailed questions you want to ask, feel free to post them, or PM me at any time.

 

[saltwaternewb]

IMO cameras actually do depreciate somewhat quickly in money value but that is just electronics in general. For example, cameras like the Nikon D80 and D200 where selling at a premium about two months ago. I bought a D80 of a member here for $800 which was a good deal at the time. The D700 was announced and current Nikon values dropped immediately. I have recently seen the D80 as low as $500. Same with the D200. They were around $1000 and as soon as the D700 was announced I was able to scarf a great D200 for $800. Now as far as what the D200 can do, yeah, I could conceivably be happy with this camera for the rest of my life as far as what is can do. But if you are like many people, you will always want something bigger and better. I am not one to grab something as soon as it comes out but in a couple years when some of the higher end cameras start to loose more value I am sure I will upgrade again. But a good camera bought today with still be a good camera in five years.

But that does not mean that I would start out with the newest and most expensive camera on the market. Like Paintguru said, he is using what is considered an "old" camera, the D70s. But just because it has been out for a number of years does not make it any less capable of a camera and in fact his particular model is probably even better than some of the new stuff on the market. I had a D70 and I LOVED it and I regret selling mine.

I would also not get too caught up on the brand war. It won't get you anywhere. Especially considering the FACT that Nikon owns Canon. Just look at the camera war thread to see this fact substantiated

 

[cparka23]

^ LOL ^

Thanks for the replies so far, everyone. I've actually talked myself down from the ledge before buying a 40D once or twice. I realize that there are terrific cameras available w/ APS-C sensors and am still considering them.

I tend to be an early adopter (read: tech junkie). I'm glad that I was able to get some honest opinions from owners of different experience levels. It's been tough to keep waiting when you think something new is around the bend. Not just for the new products, themselves. Also because it means current models can drop $100-200 in a heartbeat. To clarify, it's not so much a "should I splurge?" question. Rather, it's a question of timing.. if that makes sense. Do I keep waiting and waiting? I think I rationalized to the point where I will wait until after Photokina and possibly a few months after that. Those Nikons can shed some dollars depending on what Canon does and vice-versa.

Again, thanks for the replies. Keep 'em coming.

 

[treylane]

I own and regularly use both a DSLR (Rebel XT) and a high-end point-and-shoot (G9). Basically the DSLR is an overpriced, oversized, just-ok-quality point and shoot, until you start buying it some nice glass. 99% of the people I know with DSLR's only use the kit lenses, and/or buy one other cheap lens. If that's going to be you, just buy a nice point and shoot, you'll be happier in the long run and there are some VERY nice compact cameras available these days.

 

[JuniorMC8704]

I wouldnt say that is true at all. I am more than capable with any lens you give me to blow away any point and shoot out there.

Kits lenses by comparison to pro glass is night and day, but they all blow the doors off that of a point and shoot.

The capabilities of a DSLR (providing you know what your doing with it) are massively larger than that of a point and shoot.

If you are referring to both in automatic mode, than sure, its a oversized point and shoot (still will get way better pics though).

Assuming that if you own one, you would be willing to practice, and learn its functions, a DSLR's only limit is that of the person holding it.

I own and regularly use both a DSLR (Rebel XT) and a high-end point-and-shoot (G9). Basically the DSLR is an overpriced, oversized, just-ok-quality point and shoot, until you start buying it some nice glass. 99% of the people I know with DSLR's only use the kit lenses, and/or buy one other cheap lens. If that's going to be you, just buy a nice point and shoot, you'll be happier in the long run and there are some VERY nice compact cameras available these days.

 

[treylane]

There are wonderful compact cameras available these days with features that definitely rival a low end DSLR, including fully-manual mode, exposure bracketing, RAW image support, and they have some nice "user-friendly" features (that are totally absent in the DSLR lineup) thrown in to boot. Just dismissing any camera without a detachable lens is silly.

 

[saltwaternewb]

Just dismissing any camera without a detachable lens is silly.

So is saying a P&S is in the same league as a DSLR. P&S cameras today are very capable cameras but SLR's they are not.

 

[saltwaternewb]

Do I keep waiting and waiting?

I applaud you for doing your research before jumping in but you can only wait so long. I understand the desire to save some money and also the desire to get the newest and best technology out there, but like has been stated, the cameras on the market now are going to take pictures just as good as any camera that comes out in the future. The only real difference is how they do it. I mean a picture can only be so good, right?

 

[da6d2003]

There are wonderful compact cameras available these days with features that definitely rival a low end DSLR, including fully-manual mode, exposure bracketing, RAW image support, and they have some nice "user-friendly" features (that are totally absent in the DSLR lineup) thrown in to boot. Just dismissing any camera without a detachable lens is silly.

I'm going to have to agree with this.

I bought my wife a minolta d5 (or something like that) with a 1:1 macro. It's cool but I use about 2% of what it's capable of. Honestly could have save a grip of cash and just upgraded the point and shoot for the quality of photography I'm capable of.

 

[EliteReefs]

I dont think anyone is saying they are not worth anything but they cant be compared to an SLR in the right hand with quality lens.

i currently own

canon s2 IS
canon s5 IS
canon G9
Canon 40D
had reble XT but just sold it

I just got the 40 D and took three pictures right out of the box in auto mode and right away knew i was going to be thrilled. i took pictures that i know i could have never gotten with any of my point and shoots. all of which are at or near the best p & S cameras available

i dont know what it is but the clarity and depth of the pictures i am getting out of the 40D simply destroy all my other cameras. mine came with a kit lens that is middle of ther road as far as quality. it is not pro but it is better then the normal kit lenses.

i'm not saying i cant take great photos with my other cameras becasue i can and have. I am just saying that i now fully understand why SLR cameras are so great. I say all this after only 4 days of owning the 40D i cant even imagine how great the pics will be once i know what i'm doing.

the pics of this 40D are even better then my rebel XT were but i think that isjust because it has better glass.
I get me my 100MM macro tomorrow. CANT WAIT

 

[saltwaternewb]

Honestly could have save a grip of cash and just upgraded the point and shoot for the quality of photography I'm capable of.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Paintguru]

I'm going to have to agree with this.

I bought my wife a minolta d5 (or something like that) with a 1:1 macro. It's cool but I use about 2% of what it's capable of. Honestly could have save a grip of cash and just upgraded the point and shoot for the quality of photography I'm capable of.

I agree with this as well. P&S has come a long way, especially with aperture and shutter priority modes built in. Depending on what you shoot, a P&S may be all you need. If I recall, Marvin took some DARN good photos with a point and shoot camera. If you are really interested in getting into all the nuances of photography, then a dSLR is the way to go. If you want to just shoot pictures of your tank and along with some macro shots, get a P&S, tripod, and PS Elements.

 

[Poseidon]

The single biggest advantage to a DSLR over ANY point and shoot is the size of the sensor! After that, the AF systems in DSLR's blow away most point and shoots. Third, you have an actual VIEWFINDER, not an EVF.

Are those features that the average user appreciates? Yes, they just don't know it!

 

[JuniorMC8704]

Please dont think i think all P&S are junk. Im not saying that at all.

However, what I will stick by is that any DSLR will blow away a point and shoot to any remotely skilled photographer.

This really isnt my opinion, but a fact.

The other thing that makes a monumental difference is DSLR's ISO handling.

When shooting aquarium photos, even with what we might consider BRIGHT lights, its very low light in the camera world.

If you have any desire to shoot established system shots (meaning, you didnt move the coral to the front of the tank, and high up in intense light) a DSLR is the only way to go.

I think the phrase "a picture speaks a thousand words" applies here

If thats not enough, check out my website

www.smokinreefs.com