Best DSLR deals on used market

[badpickev]

see now jd there you suffer from delusions of grandure. every knows nikon is where its at, not canon. and if you really want a camera that delivers colors like your old film did. you need a fuji and keh prices are $480-700.

[Mr. Pickles]

Around here, I like to go to a place called Ron's to get a hamburger. They only have 2 kinds. With cheese and without cheese. To me, they are much better than McDonalds hamburgers. Doesn't mean McDonalds hamburgers (any of them) are not worth anything, or doesn't mean because McDonalds has more of them and sell more they are better, or the "best"...

I don't care which one is the best, or which one someone buys and why. The D1H, E-1, S2 Pro seem like a lot better "deal" at $500 than a 20D or 10D does at $400-$700. Canons seem to have a higher resale value, thus making them a worse "deal", because people have some notion (false or not) that Canon is the best camera company around. None of them are. They all make a great product, and they all stink at something too.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by badpickev

see now jd there you suffer from delusions of grandure. every knows nikon is where its at, not canon.

...you forgot the smileys...

I agree with JD that C & N (including the F clones) offer the most flexible (widest) camera SYSTEM, so if you NEED that flexibility, that is your 'best choice', but for a dedicated *anything* shooter, the brand that is best at his/her *specialty* obviously is...

...€0.02...

Max@Home

[gryphonslair99]

Originally Posted by badpickev

see now jd there you suffer from delusions of grandure. every knows nikon is where its at, not canon. and if you really want a camera that delivers colors like your old film did. you need a fuji and keh prices are $480-700.

I hate to tell you but it wasn't your particular film camera that delivered colors. Film is film and it doesn't know a Nikon from a Canon from a Kodak. Good glass is good glass. The colors were for the most part, good processing. The same thing that you can and should be doing with RAW files from a DSLR. If you don't want to be bothered get a point and shoot.

If Nikon is where it is at, bring your 400mm f2.8 and come shoot some sports shot at 1600 ISO. That will pop the Nikon is the only camera delusion. You buy a system to meet your needs. Nikon does not match up to Canon in the field of sports photography at high ISO. Remind me, which Nikon has a 16 megapixel Full Frame sensor? I keep forgetting. Oh yea. NONE!!!

HalfPress, If you want the best deal for you on a DSLR do your research. Decide what features you need in a camera. Compare models you are interested in.

Go here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp and compare them.

Then go to a photography store and try out the cameras you are interested in. Hold them, get a feel for the controls, examine the potential lenses and accessories that you will want/need. Shoot some pictures with the cameras you decide you like. A good photography store will let you do so. The one we have here even has a computer and monitor set up to allow you to review the photos right then and there. Once you decide on what you want, then look for the best deal. With a DSLR you are not buying a camera, you are buying a system. Good glass, taken care of, will last a lifetime. DSLR bodies will come and go. Good luck.

[Kevin Barrett]

Originally Posted by HalfPress

Can you folks throw out some ideas for me on the best DSLR cameras to look for on the used market--best in terms of value for money. Brand doesn't matter. This is for someone upgrading from a point and shoot.

Appreciate it!

Consider buying a new Nikon D40.* Why buy a used body when you can get a good kit for the same price? The D40 appears to be a great entry point into the world of DSLRs, comes with a decent kit lens all for less than $600 USD. Phil Askey even likes it.*

[rootrider]

Originally Posted by gryphonslair99

If Nikon is where it is at, bring your 400mm f2.8 and come shoot some sports shot at 1600 ISO. That will pop the Nikon is the only camera delusion. You buy a system to meet your needs. Nikon does not match up to Canon in the field of sports photography at high ISO.

You are aware that Nikon has improved in this area recently, right?
And beyond that, can you show any proof or back up what you're saying at all? You've made a rather bold and biased sounding statement here.

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

I agree with JD that C & N (including the F clones) offer the most flexible (widest) camera SYSTEM, so if you NEED that flexibility, that is your 'best choice', but for a dedicated *anything* shooter, the brand that is best at his/her *specialty* obviously is...

Here's my point: when you first buy into a system, you don't really know what you want or will want in the future. That's why it makes sense to buy into the most versatile system. When I started out in photography, I had NO IDEA I'd want to end up shooting little critters and would need a 500 or 600mm lens to do so. I had Nikon. BAD CHOICE. When it came time to look seriously at the long lenses, I learned that Nikon didn't have IS in them, that IS was really, really useful in those long lenses, and that Nikon appeared UNCONCERNED about its lack of IS/VR and that I would grow very old waiting for Nikon to catch up to Canon in this area. So I dumped my Nikon gear and switched to Canon.

It was the right thing to do. If I had stayed with Nikon, I'd still be waiting for VR in long lenses. Or I would have given in and purchased one of Nikon's non-VR 600mm lenses (at a cost of over $1,000 more than the Canon model, which was better and did have IS), and a REALLY HEAVY TRIPOD that was stable enough to handle the 600 without VR. Big money, lots of weight, less versatility. Yuck.

If I had bought into Canon from the get-go, I would have been able to grow as I wished and not have to fret about changing systems to get a feature I needed somewhere else.

I'm sorry: not to start a brand war (I already have), but after my experience, I consider Canon to be qualitatively and quantifiably the best 35-mm equivalent camera system to buy into today. I really don't think there's much competition, in fact. You can choose from a multitude of sensor sizes, lots of lenses you can't get anywhere else, and you have a huge used market and many third-party lenses from which to choose as well.

Off the bat, I can think of two really important things that Canon has and Nikon does not: IS in lenses of 500 and 600mm and tilt-shift lenses. Plus I have found the pro bodies from Canon more durable than those from Nikon.

Service is yet another consideration: For me, not having to deal with Nikon service was almost worth the price of having to switch systems.

Olympus? For me and my shooting interest in nature photography, not even a consideration.

[Kevin Barrett]

Olympus was my first choice, but I chose Canon because I had no idea (still don't) where this photography obsession will take me. Canon has more options and
the equipment is 'easy' to ditch on the secondary market, a valuable attribute, if for some reason I wake up one morning and decide I want to do something else.
Hasn't happened yet, and my system and this obession continues to grow.

[Mr. Pickles]

Humm, I thought that if you used a really long lens like a 400 or 500 or 600 that you needed a tripod because it was too darn heavy to hold. But then you had to turn off the darn IS when used on a tripod. Odd that I would need that IS, when I have to turn it off. I guess Canon wins because at least they have the option of turning it off.

I especially like Canon's awesome anti-dust system that is available on only one of their DSLR's too. Works worse than the Olympus one that is on ALL of their bodies. Oh well. Canon does have all those lenses to pick from. Lots of interesting choices there, especially in the 70-200 range. All four of them choices. It is nice to have choices I guess. Might be nicer if they spent more of their qualitatively and quantifiable abilities into making them lenses even cheaper and lighter and better. Guess they are working on that one too.

All good. All bad.

And yes, you started a brand war. Fuji has Nikon Bodies (plural) and Kodak had one too. When Kodak came out with their Canon body, it flopped and took the whole Kodak DLSR business with it. Bad Canon. Bad bad bad. Nikon MUST be better....

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

Humm, I thought that if you used a really long lens like a 400 or 500 or 600 that you needed a tripod because it was too darn heavy to hold. But then you had to turn off the darn IS when used on a tripod.

I think I've heard you say that before. You're mistaken.

IS/VR is useful and, I'd argue, even essential on a tripod. If you have ever used a 500 or 600mm lens on a tripod, you will know that the lens still vibrates, certain times more than others. IS reduces the vibration, allowing you photographic opportunities you otherwise simply would not have in certain lighting conditions.

So no: it's not just for handholding a lens. Far from it.

On lens cost: last time I checked, lenses cost money, no matter which company you buy them from. One of the things I was pleasantly surprised by when I switch from Nikon to Canon is that the Canon lenses tend to cost less, sometimes significantly less. When I occasionally take a peek at the Olympus lenses, I'm shocked at how much they cost.

[Mr. Pickles]

Only mentioned it because Canon does. Canons 3rd generation of IS does not need ot be turned off, but the others do...

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

Humm, I thought that if you used a really long lens like a 400 or 500 or 600 that you needed a tripod because it was too darn heavy to hold. But then you had to turn off the darn IS when used on a tripod. Odd that I would need that IS, when I have to turn it off. I guess Canon wins because at least they have the option of turning it off.

JD countered this

I especially like Canon's awesome anti-dust system that is available on only one of their DSLR's too.

sorry to inform you: that same system is available in the DPP software FOR ALL DSLR's, even the early D30, where you can 'stamp away' the dust in picture numero uno, and then copy that mask to all the other affected images from the shoot(s)

a link for the uninitiated, see 'tutorials/stamp tool'

And yes, you started a brand war.

compared to DPR this isn't even a local riot, let alone a brand war LOL

...more €0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[jfrancho]

A brand tussle then?

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

A brand tussle then?

Not sure what there is to argue about. You make a case, back it up with an explanation, and there you have it. Photographic equipment is not something I can get worked up about emotionally. I think I explained why Canon seems to me the wisest choice to make if you're starting out. Someone else might come along and give reasons why another system might work. The reader can then decide for herself.

[badpickev]

Originally Posted by gryphonslair99

I hate to tell you but it wasn't your particular film camera that delivered colors. Film is film and it doesn't know a Nikon from a Canon from a Kodak.

thanks for proving my point. most folks shot fuji or kodak film. since the sensor is the digital film. it makes sense to get a sensor made by the folks who make your film. since most folks used fuji film get a fuji camera. it uses nikon glass.

in the end what is the BEST camera for you? the one you use. the one that best for me is fuji, they made my film, they make my sensor. the best one for jd is canon, cause nikon service didnt like him. hey jd, they dont like anyone, its just not you.

some people need to relax a bit.

i am still to funny for this board. sorry i forgot the smilys

[jfrancho]

Your logic is supported by the images you post here, Kev. Like JD said, it's up to each of us to decide what system to buy into. I'm with JD on the wide Canon offering being a good start, but if I had a little more cash, I would give another system a try. Probably the Fuji.

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

if I had a little more cash, I would give another system a try. Probably the Fuji.

If I had more cash, I'd venture into medium format digital. But I don't. So I'm set.

[Mr. Pickles]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

sorry to inform you: that same system is available in the DPP software FOR ALL DSLR's, even the early D30, where you can 'stamp away' the dust in picture numero uno, and then copy that mask to all the other affected images from the shoot(s)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I knew that. So you are saying that Canons idea of dust removal is to just leave it there and 'stomp" it out in post? Hell of a nice system. Why don't the others sign up for that one? Got to be cheaper and better, right?

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by JDArt

Somebody tell me why you wouldn't want to buy into the best camera systems--Canon or Nikon? The camera itself is just the first toe in the water.

By best, what you really mean is best-selling I guess? That's an important thing to consider, but following this to the logical conclusion we should all be using Canon as they have by far the largest market share and have lots of lenses and accessories should you wish to expand in the future. There are other things to consider though, not least of which is that if you don't at least try some alternatives then you won't appreciate the strengths available with other systems.

Just to echo some other comments here, it would be difficult to argue against the Olympus E-1 as one of the best DSLR deals on the market. A new body can be picked up for less than the price of a basic entry level DSLR, but will give you a heck of a lot more for your money. The middle range lenses aren't that expensive, and the system is building nicely. I personally preferred it to the Canon 5D for many things (apart from low light candids). You can't go wrong with your Canons/Nikons either of course, but they're certainly not the only players in town.

[badpickev]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Your logic is supported by the images you post here, Kev. but if I had a little more cash, I would give another system a try. Probably the Fuji.

thaks for the comment on my pics.