Best semi-pro camera for studio shooting

[TCRphoto]

Hi everyone.

I have been doing a lot of research lately on the best camera to suit my needs. I'm looking at D-SLR/SLTs and having trouble
deciding, so I decide that perhaps I could get some input from you folks.

I shoot 90% indoors/in studio with strobes. And the other 10% of the time I shoot outside in mostly bright lighting, so low light performance is
a very low priority for me. FPS speed is less of a concern as well. I also do prefer a camera with greater resolution because I do occasionally
make larger poster-sized prints. However, image quality is my highest priority.

My price range is generally in the 2000 dollar range with portrait lens. I can stretch a little for the right combo.

I have narrowed it down to the Sony a77 and the Nikon D7000 (I currently shoot Nikon but don't have a huge assortment of lenses so switching
systems is not much of a hassle).

I already have the decent 18-55mm VR lens so I figured if I did purchase the D7000, I'd get that and a wide angle zoom, like the 10-24mm nikkor.
The Sony a77 outfit comes with what looks to be an excellent 16-50mm constant 2.8 zoom lens.

I guess part of the problem is that Nikon and Canon are sort of between generations right now. The d800 looks like it's going to be out of my
price range, so I'm not sure I want to wait for that. Image quality is my highest priority, followed by resolution. Should I perhaps wait
for the next generation of APS-C cameras from Nikon and Canon? Or is the Sony a77 a good buy? Or is the d7000 better?

Any input you guys have for a studio photographer would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Village Idiot]

Save a bit more and find a used 5D MKII. It's 21MP and would make a great studio camera. You could find a used Nikon D700, but you'll be lacking in MP and you're not going to need faster AF and high ISO performance in that type of environment.

I mainly do portrait work with mine and most of my work is on location.

 

[CCericola]

I agree with Village. A used 5D MKII sound like it will fit your style of shooting. If an upgrade is not essential now then keep saving for the next generation.

 

[Big Mike]

I would tend to agree. A 5D (or better, a 5D mk II) would seem to suit your needs very well.

 

[TCRphoto]

Thanks Will. Is the Mk2 going to be replaced soon? I'm not as up to date on Canon and their generation cycles as I am Nikon and Sony.

Edit: And also a good starter lens that won't get embarrassed at that resolution.

 

[BlairWright]

Neither of those are Semi pro cameras, they are consumer cameras.. Semi pro would be the Canon 5D MKII or the Nikon D700.

But, both of the cameras you mentioned are very nice but I would stay away from Sony and stick with Nikon or Canon (check out the Canon T3 and 60D if you're not as Nikon fan)

Lastly, Megapixels don't matter. Case in point.. the Latest Canon pro camera is 18 MP, even less than the 5D MKII. Concentrate on getting the best lenses you can afford and don't worry too much about the body, they are disposable but glass isn't.

 

[Derrel]

My vote is for a full-frame sensor, for easier use of the "good lenses", at indoor distances, and for avoidance of the "bad focal lengths" in order to do full-length shots at indoor ranges. For my money, NO APS-C sized camera can be among "the best" for studio work. None.

So, for your limited budget,I can't think of an actual camera, since unfortunately these days a budget of $2,000 with a lens is pretty much a pipedream. In terms of "best" at that price, I'd have to go with a used Canon 5D or Nikon D700, from a distressed buyer on the last day of the month,with a rent due notice looming over his head...

Megapixels do not matter much. In terms of ACTUAL MP count, at the 24x36mm sensor size and pixel pitch of the Canon 5D or Nikon D700, you will not get more resolution from a 24MP camera because the existing 35mm system lenses are not up to any more pixels crammed onto the sensor at any aperture smaller than about f/4.5. Using the Nikon D3x at 24MP for example, testers need to rely upon lenses like the $5,800 Nikon 200mm f/2 VR in order to have a LENS that is ACTUALLY CAPABLE OF RESOLVING enough detail to differentiate between 12-megapixel D3s image that have been up-rezzed, and actual 24MP captures. Regular, normal pro-series Nikkor lenses are quite good, BUT as we've found out with the new Sony A77, actually getting SUPERIOR results with 24MP isn't so easy. Canon has already figured this out and is cutting its top-level flagship back, to only 18MP, and providing users with Medium and Small-RAW capture sizes.

 

[Village Idiot]

Neither of those are Semi pro cameras, they are consumer cameras.. Semi pro would be the Canon 5D MKII or the Nikon D700.

But, both of the cameras you mentioned are very nice but I would stay away from Sony and stick with Nikon or Canon (check out the Canon T3 and 60D if you're not as Nikon fan)

Lastly, Megapixels don't matter. Case in point.. the Latest Canon pro camera is 18 MP, even less than the 5D MKII. Concentrate on getting the best lenses you can afford and don't worry too much about the body, they are disposable but glass isn't.

More MP give you a larger image that's easier to work on in post. It's an extreme example, but try doing a complicated edit on a photo that's 24 MP vs. the same photo that's 1024 on the long side.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Neither of those are Semi pro cameras, they are consumer cameras.. Semi pro would be the Canon 5D MKII or the Nikon D700.

But, both of the cameras you mentioned are very nice but I would stay away from Sony and stick with Nikon or Canon (check out the Canon T3 and 60D if you're not as Nikon fan)

Lastly, Megapixels don't matter. Case in point.. the Latest Canon pro camera is 18 MP, even less than the 5D MKII. Concentrate on getting the best lenses you can afford and don't worry too much about the body, they are disposable but glass isn't.

More MP give you a larger image that's easier to work on in post. It's an extreme example, but try doing a complicated edit on a photo that's 24 MP vs. the same photo that's 1024 on the long side.

You're exaggerating the difference. 1024 pixels on the long side is less than 1 megapixels.

 

[Village Idiot]

Neither of those are Semi pro cameras, they are consumer cameras.. Semi pro would be the Canon 5D MKII or the Nikon D700.

But, both of the cameras you mentioned are very nice but I would stay away from Sony and stick with Nikon or Canon (check out the Canon T3 and 60D if you're not as Nikon fan)

Lastly, Megapixels don't matter. Case in point.. the Latest Canon pro camera is 18 MP, even less than the 5D MKII. Concentrate on getting the best lenses you can afford and don't worry too much about the body, they are disposable but glass isn't.

More MP give you a larger image that's easier to work on in post. It's an extreme example, but try doing a complicated edit on a photo that's 24 MP vs. the same photo that's 1024 on the long side.

You're exaggerating the difference. 1024 pixels on the long side is less than 1 megapixels.

You're failing to read.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

More MP give you a larger image that's easier to work on in post. It's an extreme example, but try doing a complicated edit on a photo that's 24 MP vs. the same photo that's 1024 on the long side.

You're exaggerating the difference. 1024 pixels on the long side is less than 1 megapixels.

You're failing to read.

Yes I did. Hehe

 

[Village Idiot]

You're exaggerating the difference. 1024 pixels on the long side is less than 1 megapixels.

You're failing to read.

Yes I did. Hehe

No you didn't.

 

[gsgary]

Do not get the Sony A55 is crap in the studio, get an A850 or A900, but i would get a Canon5Dmk2

 

[Derrel]

More MP give you a larger image that's easier to work on in post. It's an extreme example, but try doing a complicated edit on a photo that's 24 MP vs. the same photo that's 1024 on the long side.

That is a simply ridiculous example V-I. That comparison is akin to saying, "an elephant outweighs a house fly." Yeah, no chit Sherlock. 24 MP versus 1024 pixels??? WTF????

As Blair Wright pointed out, and as I pointed out, megapixels are overrated by many people. Thom Hogan has now tested four different Nikon D3x bodies; The D3x has more MP than Canon's top body, and is the highest-resolution d-slr on the market. But I challenge anybidy who says, "more megapixels is better" to go to the review, and scroll about 3/4 of the way down and look at the side-by-side comparisons of 12 MP versus 24.7 Megapixels when the D3 images are up-sampled to match the size of the D3x images...

It's really simple: 12 MP on FF is about all "most" professional-grade lenses can resolve. And, when using a truly superlative lens, like the 200mm f/2 VR Nikkor, the D3's 12 MP images can be up-sampled to produce images that look ALMOST THE SAME as D3x images...

If a guy wants more megapixels for critical retouching and spotting of images, which I have done, it's easy enough to up-rezz the image in software and get a nice, big file to work with.

 

[Village Idiot]

More MP give you a larger image that's easier to work on in post. It's an extreme example, but try doing a complicated edit on a photo that's 24 MP vs. the same photo that's 1024 on the long side.

That is a simply ridiculous example V-I. That comparison is akin to saying, "an elephant outweighs a house fly." Yeah, no chit Sherlock. 24 MP versus 1024 pixels??? WTF????

As Blair Wright pointed out, and as I pointed out, megapixels are overrated by many people. Thom Hogan has now tested four different Nikon D3x bodies; The D3x has more MP than Canon's top body, and is the highest-resolution d-slr on the market. But I challenge anybidy who says, "more megapixels is better" to go to the review, and scroll about 3/4 of the way down and look at the side-by-side comparisons of 12 MP versus 24.7 Megapixels when the D3 images are up-sampled to match the size of the D3x images...

It's really simple: 12 MP on FF is about all "most" professional-grade lenses can resolve. And, when using a truly superlative lens, like the 200mm f/2 VR Nikkor, the D3's 12 MP images can be up-sampled to produce images that look ALMOST THE SAME as D3x images...

If a guy wants more megapixels for critical retouching and spotting of images, which I have done, it's easy enough to up-rezz the image in software and get a nice, big file to work with.

Reading fail.