DSLR Users Report In! [POLL ADDED]

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DBL

Platinum Member
Mar 23, 2001
2,637
0
0
Originally posted by: ProviaFan
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: ProviaFan
At first I thought the D70 was "just fine," but now that I've used a D1 for a while, the D70 of an acquaintance feels like a plastic toy. Don't handle a pro body if you don't want to be permanently spoiled for the lower-level bodies. :eek:
I want the Canon 1D mkII. I may just bypass the Rebel XT and 20D to go straight to the big dog.
Reasons to buy the pro body: much better viewfinder, faster and more reliable AF, build quality and weather sealing, larger sensor (in Canon's case) for better subject isolation (relationship between angle of view, focal length, and aperture: 75mm on a 1Ds at 2.8 has less DOF than 50mm on a 20D at 2.8 - this is also a benefit of the 1D series to a slightly lesser extent). In other words, if you can afford it, if you can carry it, and if you can use the features, a pro body is more than worth the cost. :cool:

Conversely, if you are "reach" fanatic, you are better off with a higher crop DSLR as your camera lens will have a greater effective focal length. The greater the pixel density, the better. A bird photographer might want the new Nikon D2x with its 1.5x crop and 12mp sensor.
 

IBuyUFO

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,717
0
76
I wish I had gone the Canon route but I have all these Nikon lenses already. But I see that as a good thing I guess since I don't have to shell out $8k for a new camera. I just need to pay half of that amount. Would have been nice if I could use the D2x to get wide angle with my 17-35 lens.
 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
Originally posted by: DBL
Conversely, if you are "reach" fanatic, you are better off with a higher crop DSLR as your camera lens will have a greater effective focal length. The greater the pixel density, the better. A bird photographer might want the new Nikon D2x with its 1.5x crop and 12mp sensor.
Absolutely. The ideal camera would be a full frame model (as in 1Ds or SLR/x) with a high speed crop (as in D2x) to get the best of both worlds. However, for shooting birds (or just about anything else), I'd take a D2x over a Canon 1Ds Mark II (though I wouldn't turn down a 1Ds MkII if someone wanted to give me one). ;)
 

kyutip

Golden Member
Jul 24, 2000
1,729
0
0
Nikon D70
Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8
Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8
Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II

Thinking about getting Tamron 90mm Macro to replace the 85mm.
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
Currently have a EOS 350D with Kit Lens.

I would like a 10-22, 24-70 2.8l and a 70-200 2.8l, but have to wait to see if I'll have any change left after buying a house. :)
 

montanafan

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,551
2
71
Canon EOS 300D
Canon 18-55mm f/3.5 (Kit)
Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6
Vivitar 285 HV Zoom Thyristor (I use it on a side flash bracket/grip with a cable and adapter.)

I'm saving up for a 70-200mm f/2.8 :)
 

Sketcher

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2001
2,237
0
0
Congrats on your purchase Haybusa Rider! Nice shot. Already upping the ante

And welcome to the club!
 

thomsbrain

Lifer
Dec 4, 2001
18,148
1
0
I have an old school Sony DSC-770, which when I bought it (5 years ago) was probably the closest thing on the market to the DSLR's now sold. the lense was fixed, but other than that, it offered similar features. it has a full-size PC card slot for memory, so with adapters, i can use any kind of memory i want (i use compact flash rather than sony's lame memory stick). you can attach an external flash or use the decent built-in flash, it has an analog video output for TV's, you can control all aspects of the exposure, it has a 2" LCD (huge for the time), 5x optical zoom, manual/automatic focus with varying focal points, continuous shooting (including timed intervals), blah blah blah.

It has 1.5 megapixels and it cost over $700. Ouch! :D And the overall image quality is easily surpased by any average point-and-shoot 3.2 MP camera. But considering that, when it came out, everyone else was still using those ones that used a freaking floppy disk, this thing was a monster. Anyway, I'm too poor to get a new one or I'd totally get one.