What is the best value SLR on the cuurent market ?

[msarp]

Hi , I am looking to buy my dad a new SLR Digital camera. I am looking for the best I can get for the money!
And also , 1 that money does not matter.
You opinions would be appreciated.
Thanks

 

[dug777]

I'd say the Pentax K100D is pretty awesome, bang for buck.

You can get a D40 pretty awesomely cheap now too.

If money was no object, i would quite like a D2Xs...

I think i will be very happy with my D80 for many years, however

 

[AmigaMan]

yup, pretty much what dug777 said on the cheap/bang for buck end. I would think that the D40 is more crippled than the Pentax, but you are getting a Nikon if that means anything to you. On the top end, you can spend several thousand on a body, but several more on the lenses.

 

[IeraseU]

There is a new Nikon professional dslr being announced in less then 1 month. Wait for that if you have the kind of money that can afford the best.

 

[sdifox]

I propose EOS 1D Mark III just to make it harder to choose

This is for the money no object category. Plus you have to get a complement of L lenses

If that doesn't bankrupt you, I need to be your insurance beneficiary

 

[Zenmervolt]

Define "best".

At the lower end of the market (Canon XTi, Nikon D40/D80, Pentax K10D, Sony A100, Olympus E410/E510) there really isn't a clear winner (it can be argued that the crippled D40 is the "loser", but not convincingly) in terms of capability and the end result is that whichever one feels best in your hands is the best one to buy.

For cost-is-no-object, probably the Canon 1D MkIII, though it will be interesting to see what Nikon and Sony come out with next. I don't see either Nikon or Sony challenging the 1D MkIII this time around, but their next cameras should be very telling of their intentions.

ZV

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: sdifox
I propose EOS 1D Mark III just to make it harder to choose

This is for the money no object category. Plus you have to get a complement of L lenses

If that doesn't bankrupt you, I need to be your insurance beneficiary

I was just about to say that. IIRC, Canon is the only manufacturer that produces a full frame (ie 35mm) camera body.

Pentax/Sony/Olympus has fewer lenses to chose from than Nikon/Canon (if that matters to you).

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: AmigaMan
yup, pretty much what dug777 said on the cheap/bang for buck end. I would think that the D40 is more crippled than the Pentax, but you are getting a Nikon if that means anything to you. On the top end, you can spend several thousand on a body, but several more on the lenses.

Not in the long run. On 4 lenses I bought used for my Canon, I saved nearly $500 over buying new. And these lenses all work great and never had any issues with them.

As Pentax gains more marketshare...eventually you will see a larger used lens market... but most forums I visit you see Canon or Nikon lenses for sale. Something to consider.

 

[kami333]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: AmigaMan
yup, pretty much what dug777 said on the cheap/bang for buck end. I would think that the D40 is more crippled than the Pentax, but you are getting a Nikon if that means anything to you. On the top end, you can spend several thousand on a body, but several more on the lenses.

Not in the long run. On 4 lenses I bought used for my Canon, I saved nearly $500 over buying new. And these lenses all work great and never had any issues with them.

As Pentax gains more marketshare...eventually you will see a larger used lens market... but most forums I visit you see Canon or Nikon lenses for sale. Something to consider.

That's because with Pentax lenses you don't have 4 lens covering the same range so once you get a lens, you tend to keep it unless you are getting out of photography altogether.

I remember when the DLs and DSs first started flooding the market, the used market price for the manual Pentax lenses went way up.

 

[troytime]

d80 kit with the 18-135 lens from circuit city
use a 10% coupon (2 bucks on ebay)
plus 2% cash back from obesewallet

 

[msarp]

Thanks Guys, I decided to go with the Pentax K100D . It is his first SLR Digital Camera. This seems like a perfect one for him at the moment.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: msarp
Thanks Guys, I decided to go with the Pentax K100D . It is his first SLR Digital Camera. This seems like a perfect one for him at the moment.

i was about to post that it is probably the best bang-for-buck SLR out there right now. yes, you get more or faster with each step up, but you start diluting the bang-for-buckness.

and unquestioningly the best SLR on the market right now is the 1D Mk. III. unless your criteria revolve around unobtrusiveness, in which case i'd wonder why you were looking at an SLR to begin with.

 

[teatime0315]

EOS 1D Mark III = money is no object
Nikon D80 + kit lens 18-135 ~ little over 1000
Nikon D40 + Kit lens 18-55? + a cheap VR lens - under 1000

 

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: IeraseU
There is a new Nikon professional dslr being announced in less then 1 month. Wait for that if you have the kind of money that can afford the best.

Just curious if you have first-hand knowledge of something new being announced (D3, perhaps?), or if this is more based on the internet rumor-mill (remember the last time the D3 announcement was imminent)?

 

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: sdifox
I propose EOS 1D Mark III just to make it harder to choose

This is for the money no object category. Plus you have to get a complement of L lenses

If that doesn't bankrupt you, I need to be your insurance beneficiary

I was just about to say that. IIRC, Canon is the only manufacturer that produces a full frame (ie 35mm) camera body.

Pentax/Sony/Olympus has fewer lenses to chose from than Nikon/Canon (if that matters to you).

Yeah, the 1D Mark III is the newest, but it is experiencing some birth pangs (www.robgalbraith.com) in it's autofocus engine.

The Canon full-frame body is the 1Ds Mark II and is the top according to price in the 35mm dSLR.

If money's no object, there are also medium format cameras with digital backs from Mamiya, Hasselblad, etc, if you're looking to spend north of $25K.

The best bang for the buck in my opinion is the Nikon D200. It has many of the features and capabilities of it's big brother, the D2X, but at 1/4 to 1/3 it's price. It's also weather sealed and very durable.

 

[teatime0315]

The best bang for the buck in my opinion is the Nikon D200. It has many of the features and capabilities of it's big brother, the D2X, but at 1/4 to 1/3 it's price. It's also weather sealed and very durable.

I agree great cam for the price

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: kami333

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: AmigaMan
yup, pretty much what dug777 said on the cheap/bang for buck end. I would think that the D40 is more crippled than the Pentax, but you are getting a Nikon if that means anything to you. On the top end, you can spend several thousand on a body, but several more on the lenses.

Not in the long run. On 4 lenses I bought used for my Canon, I saved nearly $500 over buying new. And these lenses all work great and never had any issues with them.

As Pentax gains more marketshare...eventually you will see a larger used lens market... but most forums I visit you see Canon or Nikon lenses for sale. Something to consider.

That's because with Pentax lenses you don't have 4 lens covering the same range so once you get a lens, you tend to keep it unless you are getting out of photography altogether.

I remember when the DLs and DSs first started flooding the market, the used market price for the manual Pentax lenses went way up.

Thats fine for the general user. It is the same with Canon... you can buy 1 lens and be happy. Most camera have lenses such as 28-135 for example. The reason to have multiple lenses is because I have yet to find a zoom that takes as sharp pictures as my 85mm f/1.8 lens (well except some canon L glass) and I can get some nice effects from my 50mm f/1.8 lens. I don't suppose the person your getting the camera for will move beyond hobbyist for a pentax with 1 lens would work fine.

 

[MrPabulum]

I'm a fan of the Nikon D40. It does practically everything that the D80 does (similar metering, etc.). The D200 is a huge step forward. Awesome camera if you care less about portability. But the Pentax K100D is a great choice.

 

[kami333]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: kami333

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: AmigaMan
yup, pretty much what dug777 said on the cheap/bang for buck end. I would think that the D40 is more crippled than the Pentax, but you are getting a Nikon if that means anything to you. On the top end, you can spend several thousand on a body, but several more on the lenses.

Not in the long run. On 4 lenses I bought used for my Canon, I saved nearly $500 over buying new. And these lenses all work great and never had any issues with them.

As Pentax gains more marketshare...eventually you will see a larger used lens market... but most forums I visit you see Canon or Nikon lenses for sale. Something to consider.

That's because with Pentax lenses you don't have 4 lens covering the same range so once you get a lens, you tend to keep it unless you are getting out of photography altogether.

I remember when the DLs and DSs first started flooding the market, the used market price for the manual Pentax lenses went way up.

Thats fine for the general user. It is the same with Canon... you can buy 1 lens and be happy. Most camera have lenses such as 28-135 for example. The reason to have multiple lenses is because I have yet to find a zoom that takes as sharp pictures as my 85mm f/1.8 lens (well except some canon L glass) and I can get some nice effects from my 50mm f/1.8 lens. I don't suppose the person your getting the camera for will move beyond hobbyist for a pentax with 1 lens would work fine.

I was talking more about the fact that both Canon and Nikon have multiple lenses of the same focal length. Currently Canon has 3 28-105 and 3 28-85ish first party lenses (and god knows how many third party lenses), yes it's nice to be able to choose how much you want to spend but it the end does it really make that much difference, you aren't likely to own more than one of that focal length anyways. Where Canon and Nikon really shine is at the really long end, 400 and above, but it's almost never mentioned by people recommending specific DSLRs and outside of pros at sporting events and such you rarely see anyone using them.

I've had friends who have gotten the DReb and Nikons because of "their huge lens selection", yet in the end they end up getting a wide angle zoom, a longer zoom, and a couple primes (yup, usually a 50mm and maybe a 85mm), which every other DSLR manufacturer offers.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: kami333
I was talking more about the fact that both Canon and Nikon have multiple lenses of the same focal length. Currently Canon has 3 28-105 and 3 28-85ish first party lenses (and god knows how many third party lenses), yes it's nice to be able to choose how much you want to spend but it the end does it really make that much difference, you aren't likely to own more than one of that focal length anyways. Where Canon and Nikon really shine is at the really long end, 400 and above, but it's almost never mentioned by people recommending specific DSLRs and outside of pros at sporting events and such you rarely see anyone using them.

I've had friends who have gotten the DReb and Nikons because of "their huge lens selection", yet in the end they end up getting a wide angle zoom, a longer zoom, and a couple primes (yup, usually a 50mm and maybe a 85mm), which every other DSLR manufacturer offers.

I think lens selection is important. It's great that there are many lenses too chose from in the same category. For example if Canon only had the kit lens for a crop camera zoom I would cry. Its slow and soft. If they only had that and the 17-85 IS, that wouldn't fix my problem. It's still at 5.6, although it has a generous range. All their fast walkaround lenses are 24 or 28mm. Not wide enough. Third party. Okay the Tamron 17-50. But as a wedding photog, that draws way too much attention.
Fortunately, they make the 17-55 2.8 IS. And it has USM. I despise non-USM type motors.
If I got pissed at Canon because I let fanboys get to my head, I would switch to Nikon. At least they have SW motors. And Sigma has HSM for Canon and Nikon mounts.
Pentax? Sure, all I hear about is that they have 3 on the way. I heard that for a while. Useless to me. Even then, it's still 3.

 

[kami333]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: kami333
I was talking more about the fact that both Canon and Nikon have multiple lenses of the same focal length. Currently Canon has 3 28-105 and 3 28-85ish first party lenses (and god knows how many third party lenses), yes it's nice to be able to choose how much you want to spend but it the end does it really make that much difference, you aren't likely to own more than one of that focal length anyways. Where Canon and Nikon really shine is at the really long end, 400 and above, but it's almost never mentioned by people recommending specific DSLRs and outside of pros at sporting events and such you rarely see anyone using them.

I've had friends who have gotten the DReb and Nikons because of "their huge lens selection", yet in the end they end up getting a wide angle zoom, a longer zoom, and a couple primes (yup, usually a 50mm and maybe a 85mm), which every other DSLR manufacturer offers.

I think lens selection is important. It's great that there are many lenses too chose from in the same category. For example if Canon only had the kit lens for a crop camera zoom I would cry. Its slow and soft. If they only had that and the 17-85 IS, that wouldn't fix my problem. It's still at 5.6, although it has a generous range. All their fast walkaround lenses are 24 or 28mm. Not wide enough. Third party. Okay the Tamron 17-50. But as a wedding photog, that draws way too much attention.
Fortunately, they make the 17-55 2.8 IS. And it has USM. I despise non-USM type motors.
If I got pissed at Canon because I let fanboys get to my head, I would switch to Nikon. At least they have SW motors. And Sigma has HSM for Canon and Nikon mounts.
Pentax? Sure, all I hear about is that they have 3 on the way. I heard that for a while. Useless to me. Even then, it's still 3.

You are exactly the kind of person who would benefit from specific Canon lenses, you know what you need and Canon supplies it.

I'm talking more about people who love to talk about the all the "huge lens selection" without realizing that it also includes lenses like Canon's 70-200 that comes in 2 different aperture with or without IS for a total of 4 lenses, meanwhile making it sound like other DSLR manufacturers don't have any lenses to cover that.

I think Pentax has 5 DA* on the way, 3zooms and 2teles, at least it was back at Photokina. I believe that the 3 zooms should be released in about a month in Japan, they are starting to take preorders, no clue when they are going to hit the US.

 

[mshan]

For what it's worth, David Pogue of the NY Times just did this review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06...b84c4236ee4&ei=5087%0A