English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i would like to buy a dlsr, ill be using it for some amateur and semi professional shoots of people and events like weddings... which is better, reasonable, and wisest to buy...
im thinking of the ff
a. nikon d70
b. canon 400d
c. canon 350d
d. pentax k100
e. pentax first dlsr

which do u think will be a nice camera to buy, at present i have two slrs a nikon f80 film slr with tamron 28-200mm lens and nikon sb25 flash and canon eos ix aps format slr with 28 to 80mm lens and canon sb430ez flash...

i will buy a camera, but i need to dispose one in order to buy a dlsr, which do u think ill sell and which ill buy, and if ill buy a cheaper or older model (350d) will it be wise with the savings ill buy a flash or studio lighting eqpt? or stick with the latest model (400d) so that ill be more up to date, or try another brand (k100)?
hope you can give me advise , thanks

2006-11-03 21:51:54 · 4 answers · asked by joseph_abri 2 in Consumer Electronics Cameras

4 answers

Both of your current lenses are consumer models, and I wouldn't consider them a reason to stick with Canon or Nikon. Moreover, the Canon dRebel line has a 1.6 focal length multiplier, and all Nikon dSLR cameras have a 1.5 multiplier, so your 28mm wide angle effectively becomes 45mm on a Canon or 42mm on a Nikon digital body.
But I WOULD get a Canon or Nikon. Plenty of professional wedding photographers use a D70 or dRebel as a their backup or even as their primary body, so you'd be in good company. These models are good value for money, they take great pictures, and with both brands you'll have access to a fantastic upgrade path for bodies, lenses, and accessories. This last bit is where Pentax loses out, despite their new K10D.
I personally always thought the D70 was a tad better than the 350D, despite having 6 mega-pixels vs. 8 and the 400D is clearly better than both. However, I always suggest to upgrade lenses first, and then the body. Even six megapixels is plenty for an 8x10 inch print.
Nikon makes a very nice 18-70mm lens for around $310 retail (effectively 27-105mm). With the D70 and a decent memory card, that would keep the total price for Nikon under $1000. I don't think Canon has a lens that can compete. One step up, and Tamron has a great 17-50 constant f/2.8 for $450 (for Canon and Nikon.) These options seem much more tempting than the added mega-pixels of the 400D. To me, anyway.
Canon and Nikon also both have great 17-55mm f/2.8 zooms (I use the Nikon version with a D200), even better 70-200 f/2.8 zooms, great 85mm portrait lenses, good flash systems, etc, etc. For semi-pro work, I'd invest in all of that before spending extra on the body.

2006-11-04 10:50:40 · answer #1 · answered by OMG, I ♥ PONIES!!1 7 · 0 0

I know people are going to hate on me for this but really if you want near top line for a really good price go with olympus they are the most user friendly the lowest price and they are almost better than the canon 350 only thing is that you have to use olypus lenses

2006-11-04 18:09:10 · answer #2 · answered by neilmccalister 3 · 1 1

Pentax K100, it has electro-magnetic shake-reduction CCD stabilisator. Good thing if you shhot with tele-zoom lenses and low-light situations. 6M pixels is enough for A4-size (8x11") prints.

2006-11-04 11:05:28 · answer #3 · answered by romancos 1 · 0 0

400D

is the latest with reasonable price

go for it

2006-11-04 06:46:25 · answer #4 · answered by iFikrah 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers