# Best Digital Camera Under $5K?



## Jeff/fotog (Oct 14, 2005)

I am s-l-o-w-l-y getting into digital photography after messing around with some Sony cameras, which incidentally, don't seem to be that bad (6-8Mp), but now getting more serious.

In analogue, I shot medium and large format and want to have the ability to do severe cropping and lots of manipulation, so I want to have lots of data to work with.

Think of this move as 'out of the darkroom' and 'onto the computer.'  Analogue provides such a nice, smooth scale of tonality that doesn't seem to be present in what I am working with.

Looking for recommendations and ideas about a new camera.

Thanks in advance.

www.jefferyraymond.com


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 14, 2005)

What sonies are you working with right now? Small sensor point and shoots?

You can get a 5D or 1D mkII for good quality, but you may find that the "smooth scale of tonality" which you are looking for would still be absent there. But, it will be much better than that of SONY I beleive, simply because of the large sensor.

So you MIGHT want to try a lower end DSLR first, just to see how it handles the tonality and manipulation in Photoshop. The actual output is extremely similar from say 300D and 5D at low ISO, so you can experiment with it. You won't be able to crop as much of course.

I think current digital cameras have a long way to go in terms of dynamic range... right now digital to film, is like slide film to BW emulsions.

So, other than the possibility of you "not liking digital at all" because of the lacking dynamic range, you'd be better served with 5D IMO

Doc


----------



## Mumfandc (Oct 14, 2005)

Jeff/fotog said:
			
		

> Analogue provides such a nice, smooth scale of tonality that doesn't seem to be present in what I am working with.
> 
> www.jefferyraymond.com


Well then just stick with analog. Or get a digital back, if your medium format allows for it.

I don't think it's worth blowing $5,000 on the "best" digital camera that probably wouldn't even meet the standards of your analog pictures anyway.


----------



## jadin (Oct 14, 2005)

It sounds like you have the cash to buy the best you can find. I realize the canon / nikon is pretty much personal preference rather than an actual superiority. That said, I LOVE my Nikon D1X, it's everything I want in a camera. Today, though, there is the D2X, which I like everything I've read about it, but I can't afford to upgrade just yet. So I really can't comment on it.

One of the best things about the D1X, D2X is the weight. It's a heavy camera, and feels solid. It feels like if I dropped it, it would dent the floor before damaging the camera.

One thing I've found is that megapixel's are highly over-rated. Having six poor-quality megapixels are not going to be better than three megapixels that are high quality.

Basically the best advice I can give is what I would buy if I could afford it (D2X). But outside of that it's almost completely personal preference. I recommend going to a site that has photograph examples, and comparing those, rather than just specs. When I bought my camera I based my choice on how the camera rendered yellow to red 'warm colors'. It was the deciding factor in the end. And something I never would've found without comparing actual photos.


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 14, 2005)

If you are comparing the results of DSLRs to medium and large format film you're going to be disappointed for at least a few more years.  For me it has replaced almost all 35mm color film, and some 35mm BW.  

Rather than spend $5k right now, you might want to look into the sub $2k DSLRs; I think you get more bang for your buck in that range.  Unless you know you need a feature only offered in the more expensive models.  Buy some nice lenses that you think will work with future models.

One thing that surprised me when I bought a Canon 20D, and began shooting with it a lot was how much I quickly spent a bunch more money on accessories.  I wanted a faster lens than the kit lenses, so I went with a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (which is still expensive at half the price of fast Canon zooms).  I bought 3 other inexpensive lenses:  50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, and a Sigma 55-200 f/4?  Canon's better flashes cost as much as another lens.  Filters and hoods for the lenses.  Extra batteries.  Plenty of memory.  Camera bag.  Cable release.  And so on...  I spent more on the other stuff than I did the camera body.  Then after the first month I filled my hard drive.  The bigger files were boggin down my computer in Adobe PS.  I had to buy a new computer with extra storage space.  Getting into digital photography was a lot more expensive than I had estimated.


----------



## Jeff/fotog (Oct 15, 2005)

Ooops, I should have told you what I am working with at the moment.  I have two Sony's, a discontinued DSC-S85 rangefinder and a DSC-F828 SLR.  The good thing about the S85 is that it has a B/W mode in the camera.  I've shot about 6000 images with the little bugger and it is a handy kind of M-3 idea.  I had expected something more from the 828, but it doesn't produce much better of an image and a lot bigger and more cumbersome.

Thanks for your continuing input.  Hey, maybe I'm a) too early to expect a great camera or b) nuts to have sold most of my analogue stuff?

www.jefferyraymond.com


----------



## usayit (Oct 15, 2005)

perhaps a high end negative scanner for your film cameras is an option?


----------



## Jeff/fotog (Oct 15, 2005)

Actually I do have a great scanner. Hmmm. Without a darkroom I'm pretty much out of the making the negative part of the business, but you bring up a good idea; if I can find some way to stick with negatives and use the scanner instead of going completely digital...huh. Maybe I would be better of getting a decent medium format system and have a blend of the two technologies. 

Now you've got me really thinking. Thanks everyone! Hey, this forum works!

www.jefferyraymond.com


----------



## Mike Jordan (Oct 15, 2005)

It depends on what kind of shooting you plan on doing. If you are doing scenics, landscapes, portaits, the occasional sporting event or other activities that you will be using a tripod or don't have to worry about needing high speed autofocus and fast frames per second, the 20D is a good camera and will probably do you for a long time. If on the other hand, you are going to be doing a lot of sports, with fast action and need a camera that can auto focus fast and shoots a lot of frames per second, then the 1DMKII is the better choice. 

I started to upgrade from a 10D to the 20D but I really needed faster autofocus and faster frames per second because I do a lot of high speed and fast action events. I also do a lot of scenic and indoor stuff, but the need for a camera that can keep up with my subjects was more important, so I spend the extra money and got the 1DMKII. I already had my "L" glass from the time I was shooting with the 10D, so at least I didn't have to buy a bunch more at the time. I do have a couple more lenses on my list though. So whatever you buy, keep in mind that you need at least one or two excellent lenses to go with it. A lot of people talk about 3rd party, but it's hard to beat the good Canon "L" glass for consistant and over all quality and consistancy. 

So the first thing you need to do is define what you are going to be using the camera for.  And keep in mind that yes, you can buy cheaper now, but digital cameras do not hold their value very long. Not like film cameras did. So if you buy cheap now and decide to upgrade in a couple of years, don't think that you can recoop a lot of your investment by selling the camera.


Mike


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 15, 2005)

I just looked at your website - with the kind of shooting you do, just get an XT with a kit lens and forget about it.

Why do u even think of plunging 5K on a camera body, if you have it - spend it on glass. It holds the vaule better (good glass that is)


----------



## hobbes28 (Oct 15, 2005)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> I just looked at your website - with the kind of shooting you do, just get an XT with a kit lens and forget about it.
> 
> Why do u even think of plunging 5K on a camera body, if you have it - spend it on glass. It holds the vaule better (good glass that is)



Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning it seems.  How about refraining from this type of comment.  Just think back to kindergarden when they said, "If you don't have anything nice to say, shut your lip!"


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 15, 2005)

Shut my lip? Can you demonstrate? 

BTT: By "the kind of shooting" I mean lanscapes, portraiture and abstract work. Neither of them require high resolution or advanced AI servo of the more expensive camera bodies. In fact, landscapes benefit from smaller sensors.

Good day!


----------



## Mike Jordan (Oct 15, 2005)

That's funny, Doc. When I looked at his forum (after I posted my comments above) I was thinking the same thing... that he didn't need the 1DMKII *OR* the 20D that I recommended above.  Any one of the cheaper DSLR cameras would work just fine for him and he's have a lot left over for lenses.  Unless of course he's planning on getting into something different than what he's currently shooting... but then he didn't indicate that.  I guess it's a good thing I didn't say anything further either after I did look at his forum. I almost did though. 

Mike


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 15, 2005)

You see, this is what consumerism does to people and society in general.

To suggest that you can express yourself with a lowly XT, is a grave offence... like glove slap to the face 200 years ago...


----------



## hobbes28 (Oct 15, 2005)

Here's where you wording yourself gets you into trouble:  



> You can get a 5D or 1D mkII for good quality, but you may find that the "smooth scale of tonality" which you are looking for would still be absent there. But, it will be much better than that of SONY I beleive, simply because of the large sensor.
> 
> So you MIGHT want to try a lower end DSLR first, just to see how it handles the tonality and manipulation in Photoshop. The actual output is extremely similar from say 300D and 5D at low ISO, so you can experiment with it. You won't be able to crop as much of course.
> 
> ...



Where you were so supportive of Jeff spending his entire budget on getting a high end DSLR and even finishing up with telling him that he would be better served with a 5D which, last time I looked, came in around $3200 or so.  *After* looking at his website, you say:



> I just looked at your website - with the kind of shooting you do, just get an XT with a kit lens and forget about it.



Which suggests that you regress in your statement of going for the earlier mentioned camera because his photography no longer warrants such a high caliber camera and spending that much on a camera wouldn't be worth it.

If you took some time to know anything about me, you would know that I am a firm believer in the photographer making the picture and not the camera.  I have complimented users that shoot great pictures with their camera phones and will continue to recognize photographers and not the cameras themselves.


----------



## HoboSyke (Oct 15, 2005)

hobbes28 said:
			
		

> If you took some time to know anything about me, you would know that I am a firm believer in the photographer making the picture and not the camera. I have complimented users that shoot great pictures with their camera phones and will continue to recognize photographers and not the cameras themselves.




True words ! :thumbup:


----------



## jadin (Oct 15, 2005)

hobbes28 said:
			
		

> Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning it seems.  How about refraining from this type of comment.  Just think back to kindergarden when they said, "If you don't have anything nice to say, shut your lip!"



Hmm, I see where you got that, but I just wanted to say I didn't take it as an offensive comment. I thought he was commenting on his chosen style / genre of photography, rather than the quality.

He even gave good advice for any photographer, getting higher-quality glass is a much better long term investment, one that can even yeild higher-quality photographs for the same amount of money spent.

Just my two bits.


----------



## hobbes28 (Oct 16, 2005)

jadin said:
			
		

> Hmm, I see where you got that, but I just wanted to say I didn't take it as an offensive comment. I thought he was commenting on his chosen style / genre of photography, rather than the quality.
> 
> He even gave good advice for any photographer, getting higher-quality glass is a much better long term investment, one that can even yeild higher-quality photographs for the same amount of money spent.
> 
> Just my two bits.



Word.  I was just letting him know how what he said could be easily misunderstood.  IMO, if you are a firm believer in glass as an investment, you should stand behind that fact first, not after seeing a person's work.  I mean, do you have to be a portrait photographer to purchase the 5D?


----------



## Jeff/fotog (Oct 16, 2005)

I picked the $5K number because it was much lower than some of the megabucks digital backs I have seen around.

The pics on my site are very small files of big images, due to the cost of server storage and trying to be respectful of download times for users.  Actual images are often 16 x 20 with very long scales.  

Having been used to working with 4 x 5 negatives in a darkroom with good glass and disciplined technique, I find that the Sonys are great in relatively small scale.  What I guess I am wondering is if there is a digital camera out there that will give me the basic data I need to work with, in comparison to old Tri-X 4x5 when I start playing with it on the computer?

Does that help?  I apologize for the confusion.

Thanks in advance.

www.jefferyraymond.com


----------



## Mike Jordan (Oct 17, 2005)

hobbes28 said:
			
		

> Word. I was just letting him know how what he said could be easily misunderstood. IMO, if you are a firm believer in glass as an investment, you should stand behind that fact first, not after seeing a person's work. I mean, do you have to be a portrait photographer to purchase the 5D?



  You sure have a "funny" way of letting people know that they could be mis-understood.  In fact, I think the way you worded your comment to Doc was a lot more offensive than what he said that you said could have been mis-understood.  But I might have mis-understood what you meant. 

Mike


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 17, 2005)

So is there any difference in image quality between the full frame canons and the 350d/20d? The full frames have a higher pixel count but that's just inkeeping with the same pixel density on a larger area, right? And 12MP/8MP doesn't make a whole lot of difference in real terms.

Are the differences just body/build quality, firmware and focal length?


----------



## hobbes28 (Oct 17, 2005)

Mike Jordan said:
			
		

> You sure have a "funny" way of letting people know that they could be mis-understood.  In fact, I think the way you worded your comment to Doc was a lot more offensive than what he said that you said could have been mis-understood.  But I might have mis-understood what you meant.
> 
> Mike



DocFrankenstein isn't known for listening if you just lay it out there for him. 

Also, I'm a landscape and portrait photographer and I knew what he was getting at but took offense to the way he worded it and it looks like Jeff took some as well.  Landscape photography usually doesn't pay that well so it seems like a waste to spend that much money on a camera with little to no turn around.  What some people forget to consider is that for a lot of landscape scenes require a higher MP or better sensor as well as the better glass because there is typically a lot more detail in the shots taken.


----------



## Jeff/fotog (Oct 17, 2005)

I make pictures because I like to make them; there is nothing about my work that has anything to do with 'making money.'  In fact, in most cases I don't offer my prints for sale.

I'm a purist:  I make the images because they are there and get them to the point where they are at least, "pretty good."  So, there is no money motivation here at all.

But good equipment costs money and I'm just looking to figure out the best camera to use for my application of obtaining a high quality original image and the ability to have enough data to manipulate in my computer (new darkroom!) and looking for feedback.

Hope this helps.

www.jefferyraymond.com


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 17, 2005)

You could get a $1000 range DSLR, the lenses, and accessories you'll need, and a medium and large format film scanner.  No matter how much you spend today you aren't going to get what you can get from medium format or 4x5 film.  Probably tomorrow, but not today.

I love my DSLR for portraits, and hand held photography, but if I'm in the mood for some serious landscape photography it's really hard to beat a big piece of film on a tripod.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 17, 2005)

Marctwo said:
			
		

> So is there any difference in image quality between the full frame canons and the 350d/20d? The full frames have a higher pixel count but that's just inkeeping with the same pixel density on a larger area, right? And 12MP/8MP doesn't make a whole lot of difference in real terms.
> 
> Are the differences just body/build quality, firmware and focal length?


Well... higher ISO is easier to implement... 3200 looks incredibly clean on FF 5D

You also get ISO 50 and ISO 6400 I think... which adds to the flashwork.

Also you get "more information" on the full frame sensor. The pixels are cleaner and you can upsize/interpolate better.

And you get that shallow DOF of full frame.



> If you took some time to know anything about me


I'm sure I will. As one ancient guy said: "I think it's a start of a beautiful friendship"


----------



## hobbes28 (Oct 17, 2005)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> I'm sure I will. As one ancient guy said: "I think it's a start of a beautiful friendship"



Are you flirting with me? :mrgreen:


----------



## amosnews (Oct 17, 2005)

Jeff. The photography on your site rocks. Now my opinion on "best digital cameral under $5 grand".  I say get a Nikon D100 (about $1,800 - being phased out, I understand), a Nikon D90 (around $1,400), or D70 (around $900) and save your money for beer. I have used each a lot and own one of them - also have used other good models from Cannon, but have a fondness for Nikon. If anyone tells you these digitals are not pro, tell them to jump in a lake. I make a ton of money shooting for magazines and newspapers and have won muchas awards in both. The great and famed photographer, Tim Sullivan, uses one of these models as well (I mention him because your photography reminds me of his). In Sum: Use your brain and heart, shoot great, make money, and buy beer. I apologize if I have offended anyone who has spent too much on their cameras.


----------



## jadin (Oct 17, 2005)

amosnews said:
			
		

> I apologize if I have offended anyone who has spent too much on their cameras.



I wasn't offended until this sentence...

While your camera can be used by pro's it doesn't mean it has everything you need. For example all the camera's you listed are only able to go down to 200 ISO. Something I consider very important to be able to get as low as possible. That's just one detail. There are hundreds if not thousands of subtle differences between camera's. All of which play a role in the quality of a camera. There's a reason why some camera's are over $5k and others aren't even $1k.

I could just as easily say you're trying to rationalize your inability to buy the 'best'. But I won't stoop to that level.


----------



## jstuedle (Oct 17, 2005)

*    I am another that is quite pleased with my D1X. Great color, good shadow and highlight detail, and relatively low noise. Having sold numerous 24" X 36" prints from images created with this camera, I can only say I am very, very happy with the Nikon. I also lust for the D2X. It's reviews put it's output  close to or above that of film. It's color and detail are truly stunning. I have rented a D2X for a couple of jobs and until I tell the client different, they think I am shooting medium format. I realize brand is a matter of personal preference, but the big advantage I find with the Pro-D series is being able to use my older prime M.F. lenses. Just about any lens with the Nikon "F" mount made since 1959 can be made to work and meter with the D1 and 2 series. Many Nikkor manual focus lenses are regarded to be some of the best and sharpest lenses ever produced. Today they can be had for very reasonable prices. I use a mint 400 f/3.5 often that was purchased for $700 last year and a 58mm f/1.2 I have had for many years. This availability is a large reason for me to stay with the D1 and D2 series camera. Also available are tilt and shift lenses, very long telephotos, microscope adapters, very fast primes and other accessories too numerous to mention that have been out of production for years. The ruggedness of the D series is legend. A newspaper photog friend is quoted as saying "I will beat to death with my D1 the guy who attempts to steal it from me, and use it to photograph the body for the morning edition".*

*BTW, when did Nikon come out with a D90?*


----------



## jadin (Oct 18, 2005)

jstuedle said:
			
		

> *The ruggedness of the D series is legend. A newspaper photog friend is quoted as saying "I will beat to death with my D1 the guy who attempts to steal it from me, and use it to photograph the body for the morning edition".*



Hey! That guy literaly stole my line. I have a monfroto monopod I use that weighs a grip by itself. Attached to the D1X it's my beat-down stick. There's no surviving this badass combo. Jerk stole my line....


----------



## Jeff/fotog (Oct 20, 2005)

Thank you all _very much_ for your input, thoughts and inspirations.  This board is really helpful.

Here's what I did; a friend of mine writes books about digital photography and is an expert on the digital photo programs.

Here's what he basically said:  If you are looking for the same amount of 'data' in digital photography that you have with an emulsion, you have two options:  One is to spend about $14,000 for a high end back, another is to wait awhile until the technology gets down to a more reasonable number, or shoot film and print digitally.

So what he said is about where most of us are who are trying to make the l-e-a-p into digital work from the Dark Ages (get it?  Darkroom?)  Sorry for the attempt at humor, but I'd rather work on the computer than have the smell of fixer on my hands all the time.

Thanks again everyone.

www.jefferyraymond.com


----------

