Looking for a great all-around DSLR

[kaze]

Hi all. Like the title says, I am looking for a good all-around dslr. :rolleyes:
I'm a graphic designer and IT trainer, and I do a lot of photography for work. They have a Canon 1Ds II, And I've been using it and their previous DSLRs for around six months. I don't have the money to buy one of those, but I would like to get a DSLR for my personal use. I'm upgrading from a PNS, but like I said, I have experience with DSLR's.

I guess what I really want is pro-quality for a prosumer price. But that ain't usually available.

My budget is (for the body or body kit, lenses would naturally be extra) under 1000. I have no current investment in lenses.

Here's what I'm looking for;
Body size; Doesn't matter
Sensor; 6 MP and up
Image Quality; Top-notch image quality (clarity and color accuracy spot-on) - definitely a 10
Manual controls; Well, i'm looking for a DSLR, aren't I? obviously I want manual controls
Big SLR system
Low Noise at medium and high ISO, or tips to decrease the noise
Dependable camera (don't want the shutter freezing after 10k clicks)
IS and Dust-removal are options, don't really care too much about them.
I don't really want live-view, but I guess it's an option too.

The cameras that I've considered so far; Digital Rebel XT, evolt e330, Sony A100, Nikon D50. I haven't come up with a verdict so far. I'll be using it for; Indoor shooting, Concert photography, texture captures (for render work), sports photography (mostly snowboarding and surfing), Landscape and wildlife photography. I will make the occasional medium format print (13x19, I use a canon i9900)

Also, please, before you post; give me your objective observations. I don't want to hear any of the 'Canon is dumb because I use Nikon' stuff. And I don't care if the pros use it.:eek:

[gfmucci]

I started looking for a digital SLR a few weeks ago. I have similar criteria as you, with a couple of exceptions: I'd like to have a bright optical viewfinder with clear info text as a high priority (my eyesite will not be improving with age) and IS would be great, everything else being equal.

I initially liked the Olympus E-500: above average kit lenses (2 of them included in current package for less than $700); 8 megapixels; very good quality photos (with higher iso exceptions) great value; BUT smaller/dimmer optical viewfinder than the competition (Nikon D50, Canon Rebel XT, Pentax ist, Pentax K100D); higher conversion factor of lenses/smaller sensor (2x vs 1.5 or 1.6x).

Then I considered the Nikon D50: Good feel, great optical viewfinder (bright and clear), great photos (but a bit higher noise than Canon Rebel); most available lenses, along with Canon.

And at the same time considered the Rebel XT: Best ISO noise level; fastest drive; most available lenses along with Nikon; not quite as good feel as the Nikon, I felt a bit of slop in the kit lens.

I'm now most interested in the Pentax K100D: Bright good size optical viewfinder (for easier manual focusing); good feel; IS - the 2 or 3 extra stops would be worth it to me; decent lens selection of very good quality; good feel of kit lens; very decent noise levels at 1600+. I'm waiting for the official reviews at the major review sites. But what I've read from users so far, this one is number one in the running.

[timmciglobal]

Look at a used 20D?

Tim

[gfmucci]

What are used Canon 20D's selling for? How much less than new? Is the difference worthwhile, e.g. no guarantee, condition on trust, etc.

[Rex914]

What are used Canon 20D's selling for? How much less than new? Is the difference worthwhile, e.g. no guarantee, condition on trust, etc.

New ones are selling all over for just under $1000, so used ones could probably be found for $700-$800 and even less depending on how heavily its been used. I wouldn't pay more than $800 for a used 20D, personally.

[Vich]

Also, please, before you post; give me your objective observations. I don't want to hear any of the 'Canon is dumb because I use Nikon' stuff. And I don't care if the pros use it.:eek:
Well, you won't here that from me! However; Nikon is dumb because I like Canon! hahahaha (hey KIDDING OK?!)

Seriously; you should get Canon because you have access to great lenses to try. As Tim suggested; I'd seriously consider a used 20D. I've seen them for as little as $725, but normally are about $800 - 850. Try to find one still under warranty, they're still around.

They have a clear advantage over the Rebel as for professional feel. Also; Canon is recognized as having the best high ISO performance.

Another alternative is a used 10D. It's a bit old but I saw a good used one on FM for just $400! It'll get you going with lots of room for lenses. Down side is a little bit (not much) more noise and a little less resolution, but nothing that'll make much difference. Lots of pros use it as their backup camera.

If you must

[coldrain]

I like the operation and lens lineup from canon more, my own choice is and would be a Canon camera. It does depend on what you actually want to have... best high ISO ability, EOS 20D/30D. Compact travel companion, EOS 350D/Nikon D50.

All these have very good image quality, depending of course on what lens(es) you would want. And what budget for those you have. If you want an all in one big focal range convenience lens with IS, then Nikon on the moment is the only one offering that in the Nikor 18-200mm VR.

If you want wider angle primes, Canon has a better lineup.

If you want the best 70-300 class lens (compact and light-ish for the range), then the best by far is the Canon 70-300 IS USM.

Other lenses may have good offerings on both sides... so, waht are you thinking of on the lenses side?

[timmciglobal]

To sum it up "nikon vs canon" the nikon cameras have a better user interface and usually designed more on the "usability" and less on the raw performance, where I'd say the canons are the other way around.

That's not to say a 20D is uncomfortable or a D200 produces bad images but in general..

If your doing a lot of high ISO 800+ shooting then 20D/XT deffinitly.

Tim

[coldrain]

I think this post from another thread explains it best ;)
Don't take things out of context.

[kaze]

Weeell, I ended up taking the advice of most everyone and getting a used 20d. Good lens system, Kick-butt quality, and still quite usable. I will probably put a link here to my gallery once I get some of my new photos on it.

And after doing some research and some math, 8ish megapix is all I really need, since I won't be printing any larger than 13x19, at least for a good while.

BTW - The 'math' i mentioned, If I did my equations right -
I ran some equations regarding the theoretical 'resolution' of the human eye, and basically, if we consider a viewing distance of 10 inches, the human eye can differentiate between two points of light one arc-minute apart at ten inches - that equates to 343dpi, roughly. So if you printed a 6" x 10" print from a 20d shot without retouching, and the same shot from film (35mm or whatever), the human eye can't differentiate unless it's viewed closer than 10", which for me means that the 20d is perfectly suitable for small-to-medium prints.

And if any of you want the math for yourselves, it's as follows;
Theoretically, the human eye can differentiate 2 points of light 1 arcminute apart, if the eye has 20/20 vision and the points are at least 1 lambert in brightness. So to determine dpi, we take a nominal viewing distance, in this case 10 inches; Find the circumference of a circle with radius 10 inches. this comes to 62.8 inches (C=3.14*(10*2)) 1 arcminute, which is 1/60th of a degree, comes to 0.002908 inches. Then divide 1 by 0.002908, which gives a result of 343.878~ and so on.

thus you can differentiate approximately 343 DPI at ten inches. 343 DPI in the 20D resolves to 10.21" on the X axis and 6.81" on the Y axis.