Your next SLR - What are you looking for?

If I can afford it in the next 6 months, a 5D2. If not, I'll hold out for a 5D3.

Fortunately I have 2 weddings this month and an event for Sailor Jerry Rum today, so I am close to being able to get the 5D2 :)
A holiday may put that on hold though.
 
TBH i'm pretty happy with my 30D as it does everything i need!

I suppose a 40D or 5D would be nice but have other stuff to spend pennies on - maybe a 100-400 dust pump or 400 f5.6 prime if i can get the cash together.

gt
 
I own a 5D and will go along with the D700 comments, as the D700 seems to address all the real area of opportunities that the 5D has, i.e. weathersealed, pro-level AF and metering, decent rear screen etc.
Back in the real world, I can fairly easily work around those issues, and am pretty happy with the 5D as is. Personally I'd rather spend the dosh on some high quality primes now, as I'm happier with my end results with those.
 
Currently have a 20D and I'm happy enough with it, have thought a few times of moving to a 7D or selling my 10-22 probably for more than what I paid for it and getting a 5D2. Then again I'm only on a 3 day week so it's unlikely I'll follow through with any of those ideas. :)
 
I'm perfectly happy to stick with my gripped 5D Mark II for the moment. It does everything I want, and more. I have never had an issue with the AF, it does what I want it to. That said, some of the bells and whistles that are now on the newer models from Canon and Nikon would be nice, but they're hardly worth losing sleep over.

Having said all that, when the 5D Mark III comes out I'll no doubt buy one straight away!
 
Got a D40x at the moment, seriously want the D7000, but think I'll probably go for a D90 (possibly second hand) as I want a larger bodied camera, more AF points, and a AF motor built into the body. I don't use it anywhere near as oftern as I would like, which is why I'll probably buy second hand. Movie capabilities is pointless for me, I have never wished my D40x did video, and don't think I'll be using any video capability on any future camera I get...
 
What do I want - a D3xs (24mp, 9fps, CAM3500AF, D3s high ISO performance) in a D700 body.

More realistically, a D700 with 5DII/D7000 video capabilities and a D7000 as a backup body (which to be honest could be almost as well served with a D700 and D7000 as they are)

EDIT: Then again, second hand D3s prices are getting on a par with new D700 ones, despite the extra bulk it handles beautifully and if I'm going to have a smaller second body anyway then it maybe makes some sense...
 
Next body?

1DIII's (or just 1DII/1DIII) or switch to D3's.

Problem with going to noink is the cost of the D3's are much higher than the 1DIII's.
 
Serious camera which throws mirror into history's trashcan as useless relic blocking real time/live expoosure preview and histogram of EVF...


Amp34 said:
Pixel wise, I'm happy with 10-12MP, rather have better dynamic range and noise handling than extra pixels.:)
Click to expand...
Getting that point through thick skulls of marketroids would just require using axe.
Only Olympus and Pentax seem to have enough common sense (or enough few marketroids) to avoid Marketing Pixel race driven by Canon.
 
I will probably change to whatever replaces the 7D or Mk2 version of the &d if they improve the low light abilites. Most of my pictures are in lower light and the 7D would be worse than what I already have. I'd like the wireless flash ability of the 7D and extra AF points but the average low light ability puts me off until the next revision/replacement.
 
My 'next' SLR will be my first and right now I have no idea which route to take, currently thinking about a 5d2, 7d, or just a 50d/550d, but by the time I have the cash t oget one these will all be old hat...
 
EsaT said:
Serious camera which throws mirror into history's trashcan as useless relic blocking real time/live expoosure preview and histogram of EVF...


Getting that point through thick skulls of marketroids would just require using axe.
Only Olympus and Pentax seem to have enough common sense (or enough few marketroids) to avoid Marketing Pixel race driven by Canon.
Click to expand...

Nikon are quite open in pursuing low noise high DR sensors.
Canon is really screwing over consumers by marketing pixels. Its sad that other manufactures are forced to follow driven by their marketing departments.
 
D.P. said:
Nikon are quite open in pursuing low noise high DR sensors.
Canon is really screwing over consumers by marketing pixels. Its sad that other manufactures are forced to follow driven by their marketing departments.
Click to expand...

:confused:

Odd post.

Canon are pursuing high Mp files for the sake of sharpness and overall file size. In theory the high-ISO ability of the canon cameras is better since they have a lower base ISO (just as important as high ISO IMO for slower shutter speeds), so you could argue (slightly incorrect, but you get the idea) that the high ISO difference is one stop between canon/nikon. Canon fourstops from BASE is the same as nikon fourstops from base. When you now consider you downscale the canon file. Canon in an odd way have a better high ISO set of files. This is of course wrong. But you get the idea.

On thing people forget is the down scaling. Scale a 16.7MP 1.3x crop file to an A4 cover and crop a 12Mp file and crop 1.3x to A4. The now 8MP file is the same as comparing noise twice as close (say 200%) too the canon (say 100%). Compare noise then and you'll note there's a very negligible difference.

Or if you wanted to argue why 1.4x crop the file. Then my relpy would be 1.4x TC or get a longer lens. Either way, it'll cost you a stop of light or 2/3 of your file.

SO in essence I'm saying to be fair you ought to compare the smaller nikon files to the canon in print (or at different magnifications to represent the size on a page) then you'll notice the difference in noise and with the D3s/MkIV it's pretty close in print. About half a stop in favour of the Nikon on a double spread.
 
Except you never get anywhere close to the theoretical resolution of the sensor anyway. You will hit diffraction limits by 7MP on a 1.5X crop at f/11.

The measured resolution differences between the high MP sensors and the low MP sensors is very minimal because they suffer massively form diminishing returns due to diffraction. However, the noise differences are real. In the end it is about the SNR, which doesn't increase with higher marketing pixels. What you end up with is slower cameras, bigger memory cards, slower post processing, bigger HDDs, and lens resolving power has to go right at the Nqyist frequency by using the best possible lenses stopped down to the best aperture.

If one wants to generate a higher resolution then modern software like genuine fractals will happily upscale technically perfect images, good enough for Alamy/Getty/Corbis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom