Buying a dSLR for a wide range of photography (K-7, D90, 7D, other?)

[compgeek89]

I'm looking for a dSLR in the $1000 range. I've been using a Canon Powershot IS SD870 for over a year, and an SD700 before that (which broke). I really enjoy photography and I want to move to a dSLR. A few months ago I had my eye on a Nikon D90, but now I'm really leaning toward the Pentax K-7 because it's actually $50-$100 cheaper these days and has more features and weatherproofing (which, while not a requirement, seems really nice since I'll be mostly outdoors). I've been a little hesitant because of the poor low-light performance of the K-7. Overall, I'm sure whatever I end up with will be a huge jump from my SD870, but if I'm going to make the investment, I want to make the right one. The K-7 would cost me exactly $1000, just to throw that out there - with the default lens.

I have also considered the Canon EOS 7D, which would cost me $1800 with the default lens. My question here is whether this beast would be worth the extra investment. It seems like a good price considering it's much less than the D300/D300s. But I don't know if it's worth $800 more than the K-7. Picture quality is important to me, and I know the 7D does better at High ISO and low light than the K-7 (which seems to be exceptionally poor in its class, despite all its other perks). But, again, it's nearly twice the price and I need a pretty good push to go for it.

In the end, my top priority is picture quality in the $1000 range. If there's a camera I should be considering, in your opinion, please throw that out there. I've pretty much ruled out the Canon EOS 50D.

So, I know none of you can 'solve' my problem or make my choice for me, but considering I'm new to the scene and have little experience with dSLRs, I value some knowledgeable input before I just go for it.

Thanks in advance and best regards,
Comp

P.S. I would also like to throw out that I am open to buying a ~$500-ish dSLR to start off if I'd be better off going that route. I don't want to get ahead of myself in my photography career, I just got sold on the advantages of the semi-pro bracket over the entry level based on what I read. But I have yet to buy anything... that's how sold I am emoticon - smile

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I would find a used 30D or 40D ($450-$650) and a 17-55 f/2.8-ish lens (Canon: $850 used, Sigma or Tamron: $400 or less). Next step is to find out whether you want wider than 17mm, or longer than 55mm, and buy either a 10-22 (or the Sigma, Tamron, etc. equivalents) or a 70-200. I'm sure you can find something equivalent in the Nikon range if you wanted to go that way. I know their 17-55 is equivalently priced. But definitely go with a better lens than the kit lens that comes with any of those bodies. (Go for max f/2.8 aperture through the whole zoom range.) For about $2000 you could get a used 5D and 24-105 f/4L, which is a whole lot more camera and lens than the 7D and 28-135 for $1800 (I have no idea why they pair crop bodies with the 28-135. It's just stupid. You don't get any wide end at all.).

There is no need to spend the premium to buy new, especially on bodies. Lenses hold their value pretty well (especially the non-consumer-level lenses) but bodies drop like rocks every time a newer body comes out. Get on a photography forum and you'll be able to find 2 or 3 generation old bodies for half price or less.

I just can't see myself ever recommending a Pentax or other minor brand. Nikon and Canon absolutely dominate the DSLR space. It is super easy to find used copies of pretty much any lens you might want for Nikon or Canon; for other brands, it's a lot less likely. I think Pentax has backwards compatibility with a lot of older (therefore, cheap) manual-focus lenses, as does Nikon; but unless you're really into that sort of thing, and you already know all of the old lenses you want to get on eBay, I would go with one of the big two. The only third brand that I could see myself getting behind is Panasonic, but only because 4/3rds seems to be more and more of a broadly adopted standard, and the micro-4/3rds bodies have a lot of size advantages.

 

[Munky]

I would advise against getting a old used body as your first DSLR. Newer cameras have features that make it easier to get good looking pictures without fiddling with all the settings. A 5D can make great shots if you know what you're doing and have the time/experience to set it up for the scene you're shooting, but if you don't, you'll likely get mediocre pictures at best, certainly no better than you would with a cheaper entry-level DSLR.

Also, don't go out of your way buying up a bunch of exotic lenses. There's no reason you can't get great shots with the kit lens - in many scenery-type photos you'd be shooting at apertures close to f/8, and at that range a kit lens is plenty sharp, no reason to go around lugging a heavy f/2.8 zoom. For low light shooting, get a f/1.8 prime lens that would blow away the f/2.8 zoom in terms of sharpness and light-gathering ability.

The most important factor in getting great photos is not the equipment you use, but the photographer's skill and imagination. Start off with something relatively lightweight and inexpensive and work on building up your skill and experience. After that you will know better yourself what kind of equipment upgrades you need.

I'd personally go with either the D90 or the K7. The D90 has better low-light pictures, but the K7 is still miles ahead of any compact camera, and if you shoot RAW you'd get plenty of detail at high ISO from the K7 as well. In fact, if I wasn't already invested in the Nikon system, I'd give the K7 serious consideration, it offers more features and better build quality than the typical cameras in its price range.

 

[jpeyton]

If I had $1000, it would either be the T2i or the D90.

Your next course of action should be a stop into your local Best Buy (or other big box electronics store) so you can hold and play with both cameras.

 

[RedWolf]

If I had $1000, it would either be the T2i or the D90.

Your next course of action should be a stop into your local Best Buy (or other big box electronics store) so you can hold and play with both cameras.

Those were the two I was looking at. The D90 is $1-200 more (cheapest I've seen them is $1050 for the D90 and $810 for the T2i). I ended up with the T2i in part due to the video capabilities of the T2i and the better high ISO performance. If the price was exactly the same for both I may have gone with the D90. I liked the handling of the D90 better but the T2i has all the settings I use most available and it is a bit lighter than the D90. I do wish the T2i's grip was a bit beefier but for some reason Canon continues to make the grip suited to 12 year old girls. It's not terrible but after a while it can be uncomfortable. Overall, I'm quite happy with the T2i.

 

[klocwerk]

Those were the two I was looking at. The D90 is $1-200 more (cheapest I've seen them is $1050 for the D90 and $810 for the T2i). I ended up with the T2i in part due to the video capabilities of the T2i and the better high ISO performance. If the price was exactly the same for both I may have gone with the D90. I liked the handling of the D90 better but the T2i has all the settings I use most available and it is a bit lighter than the D90. I do wish the T2i's grip was a bit beefier but for some reason Canon continues to make the grip suited to 12 year old girls. It's not terrible but after a while it can be uncomfortable. Overall, I'm quite happy with the T2i.

Try the 40D/50D and you'll stop bashing Canon's grip size.
The rebel's are intentionally designed to be physically small to appeal to a wider audience and make an easy transition from a point 'n shoot into the DSLR world.

So OP:
You're not buying a camera. You're buying into a lens and technology system.
The body you buy now is going to get replaced in 5 years, I can almost guarantee you, but the lenses you invest in now you may very well have the rest of your life. (Flashes as well, more or less.)
For this reason I definitely advocate getting a lightly used body and putting the money you saved into a good quality lens (or two).
Get a good flash as well, you'll quickly understand the value of a good, powerful light.

I bought the original digital rebel before Nikon had a good competitor, so I'm in the Canon camp. Upgraded the body to a D40 about a year and a half ago, should keep me happy for a couple more years.
If I had it to do again now, I might go Nikon instead mostly due to their flash system and how it can control remote flashes via the built-in flash. Canon's flash system is a bit less flexible, which is to say you can do exactly the same thing with a bit more equipment and expense.

But again, look more at the lens/flash systems that you're considering buying into. They're the real investment, and Canon/Nikon have WAY more options than Pentax, which is why it's cheaper.

 

[GoSharks]

But again, look more at the lens/flash systems that you're considering buying into. They're the real investment, and Canon/Nikon have WAY more options than Pentax, which is why it's cheaper.

Pentax is competitive with both Nikon and Canon in the consumer normal range. To start, all of their lenses are stabilized. They also have some unique lenses that are very good - Limited Pancakes, and weather resistant lenses at lower prices than Canon or Nikon.

Do you really care if Canon and Nikon have more lenses that you will never buy? If you plan on spending $1k or more per lens, by all means go with Canon or Nikon, but most people don't. Most people will likely stick with the kit lens plus a tele zoom, and any manufacture is more than capable in that range.

 

[compgeek89]

I really appreciate all the input guys and I have given all of your comments some thought. I think, however, that you guys have nearly convinced me to get the K-7, ironically. The K-7 has in-camera stabilizing and is weatherproof and has economical weatherproof lenses readily available.

My reasoning here is that, if I stick with the same body long-term, the K-7 will give me more lens options because of the internal image stabilization. If I decide I want a better camera after a couple years (maybe full-frame), I won't be in the hole that much with the Pentax technology since it's cheaper in the first place and will hold a decent amount of its value.

Anyone care to comment on my logic? If I end up deciding I want some expensive lenses, I'll probably end up getting a new body anyway, so why not save some money now on a solution that could be just fine in the long-term as-is is I like the pentax tech? They do have a sufficient lens selection.

Thanks again,
Comp

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Same applies with CAnon I suppose. Your advantage with Pentax is in-camera stabilization. That's it. Most of the lenses you buy with Canon feature IS anyway, and the ones that lack it, you don't really need (i.e. 10-22, etc) I suppose the 24-70 is one that could get an IS and deserves one, but for the most part there's IS solutions out there when you need it. It's not like you're paying a lot more. It's not like you would get a different lens other than the 24-105L if you didn't want IS.

And the 70-200 series offers you the choice of IS or no. I say all the Canon lenses are well worth it, even if there's some inherent cost with having IS in each of them.

Till this day Canon's 70-200 series is just amazing. You have FIVE freaking lenses to pick from now. On top of that you could throw in a 70-300, 55-250 and even the 75-300 as possible cheaper candidates for telephotos. The lens system of Canon is amazing. And where Canon fails to impress (50/1.4), Sigma picks up the slack and delivers you a near L lens. I expect the same of the new Sigma 85/1.4 too.

 

[GoSharks]

Same applies with CAnon I suppose. Your advantage with Pentax is in-camera stabilization. That's it. Most of the lenses you buy with Canon feature IS anyway, and the ones that lack it, you don't really need (i.e. 10-22, etc)

Really it comes down to if you see yourself utilizing Canon's and Nikon's catalog of thousand dollar lenses and how much value you place on Pentax's unique features:

Weather sealing. Stabilized primes. Stabilized pancake primes. Body size/build. Huge backcatalog of compatible MF lenses.​

The K7 as a first DSLR is kind of a niche product. You need to figure out if that niche is for you.

 

[jpeyton]

The D90 is dirt cheap right now; I see minty ones on Craigslist for under $650 on a daily basis.

The only Pentax I'd buy right now is the KX; it has the best sensor in their lineup.

 

[996GT2]

Really it comes down to if you see yourself utilizing Canon's and Nikon's catalog of thousand dollar lenses and how much value you place on Pentax's unique features:

Weather sealing. Stabilized primes. Stabilized pancake primes. Body size/build. Huge backcatalog of compatible MF lenses.​

The K7 as a first DSLR is kind of a niche product. You need to figure out if that niche is for you.

Pentax's lenses are getting quite expensive these days. A Pentax 60-250mm f/4 costs $1200, which is what Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 L costs...kind of ridiculous IMO. Canon's excellent 70-200 f/4L, meanwhile, can be had for $500 used on many forums.

Canon and Nikon both have a huge selection of older autofocus lenses for you to choose from. You can get some real gems for under $200. For example, the Canon 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 ultrasonic. Pentax isn't strong in this area.

Another disadvantage of Pentax...Pentax cameras are slower than Canon/Nikon's models. If you shoot sports, Canon/Nikon's cameras (midrange and up) have better autofocus systems and much faster shooting speeds.

So my advice...stick with Canon or Nikon. Consider more than just the features of the camera body itself. You are buying into the entire system (lenses, flashes, etc). Pentax has no FF cameras and may not ever release one. Their lens selection is limited, and I'm not just referring to super-telephotos here. If you go on a shooting trip with friends, chances are you won't able to share lenses with them if you shoot Pentax. Of my ~10 serious photographer friends, ZERO shoot pentax. Pentax's flash selection is limited. Their midrange AF360FGZ doesn't even have a swivel head! Your upgrade path with Pentax is more limited than with Canon, Nikon, or even Sony.

 

[angry hampster]

With $1000, I'd get a used 5D.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Ok, I'm just going to explain my reasoning a bit more here. I read the OP as saying "I'm looking to get into photography pretty seriously." He used the word "career." He's tired of P&S's and wants to dive deep into DSLR's and bypass the $500 consumer superzoom P&S's which would give him a much bigger zoom range than pretty much any DSLR lens (Tamron 18-270 notwithstanding). At least, that was my read on it.

IMO, you're simply not getting the best out of any DSLR if you're using the kit lens. Yes, you have the large sensor with better high-ISO performance than any P&S. But you've got a crappy 3x mild-wide to mild-tele zoom with 3.5-5.6 aperture.... just like every P&S out there. That variable aperture is what quickly kills most beginners' attempts to learn how to work in full-Manual mode. I recommended an f/2.8 zoom because I'm not aware of any constant-f/4 zooms for crop bodies.

And no, not all of Canon's "good lenses" are $1000. The 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.0, 100/2.8 Macro (non-L), and 70-200/4L non-IS can all be had in the $300-$500 range. The 17-40/4L is $650 (not that I would really recommend it for use on a crop body).

 

[GoSharks]

I recommended an f/2.8 zoom because I'm not aware of any constant-f/4 zooms for crop bodies.

And no, not all of Canon's "good lenses" are $1000. The 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.0, 100/2.8 Macro (non-L), and 70-200/4L non-IS can all be had in the $300-$500 range. The 17-40/4L is $650 (not that I would really recommend it for use on a crop body).

Pentax DA 17-70mm F/4, Pentax DA 16-45mm F/4

I never said that you would be spending $1000 for a good lens from Canon. What I did say/mean was that there is no significant difference between the lens lineups between brands under the ~$1000 mark.

Pentax does lack super-fast primes, but at the same time they do have F/4 standard zooms.

If you don't see yourself going crazy with glass purchases, X or Y brand having a larger lens catalog doesn't really affect you. That's all I'm saying.

 

[996GT2]

Pentax DA 17-70mm F/4, Pentax DA 16-45mm F/4

I never said that you would be spending $1000 for a good lens from Canon. What I did say/mean was that there is no significant difference between the lens lineups between brands under the ~$1000 mark.

Both of those lenses are APS-C only. What if you want an equivalent for Canon's 17-40L? Pentax doesn't have it. Oh wait...on second thought, I guess that doesn't really matter since you don't have the option of upgrading to FF with Pentax anyways...yet another limit the Pentax system imposes on you if you want to get serious with photography (as the OP stated)

Want an ultrawide that starts at 10mm and doesn't suffer from chromatic aberrations? Canon has the 10-22, Pentax only has a 12-24 that's based on a Tokina design (and as a result suffers a lot from purple fringing).

Want a fast f/4 or f/2.8 telephoto? Gives you 3 options for under $1000. 70-200 f/4L non IS, 70-200 f/4L IS, and 70-200 f/2.8 L. Pentax has nothing under 1k. Canon also gives you a ton of choices in the ~1k range: 300mm f/4 IS, 400mm f/5.6, and 100-400mm IS (used)...all with fast ultrasonic focusing.

85mm f/1.8 Ultrasonic for $375? Pentax has nothing comparable in that price range.

50mm f/1.8 for under $100? Same story.

100mm f/2 Ultrasonic for $375? Same story.

A 100mm macro that has an ultrasonic motor and doesn't extend with focusing? Nope, Pentax doesn't have that, either. What's more sad is the fact that Pentax's 100mm D FA macro, derived from an old film design, costs almost twice as much as Canon's 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro.

135mm f/2L Ultrasonic? Can be had for $900 used on the Canon side. Pentax offers nothng comparable, period.

What good is having some random pancake primes that will make your camera maybe 10% smaller overall when Pentax's lineup lacks some of the most popular lenses in the Canon lineup?

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Pentax DA 17-70mm F/4, Pentax DA 16-45mm F/4

Well, there you go. I wasn't aware of those lenses. OP, if you get a Pentax, opt for one of these rather than the 18-55 kit lens; or step up to an f/2.8 version.

 

[ElFenix]

less than half a % of the market uses 35 mm dSLRs. the rest use crop frames. you don't need a 35 mm sensor to be serious about photography. that's just gadget elitism at it's worst.

the canon wide isn't exactly a barn burner at chromatic aberration. not that CA is a huge concern as there is software that can remove it automagically.

A Pentax 60-250mm f/4 costs $1200

that's because it's a 100-400 competitor



i'd rather have the pentax 17-70 than the 15-85. shaper lens and a stop faster at the long end.

 

[996GT2]

less than half a % of the market uses 35 mm dSLRs. the rest use crop frames. you don't need a 35 mm sensor to be serious about photography. that's just gadget elitism at it's worst.

that's because it's a 100-400 competitor

1) Of course you don't NEED a FF DSLR to be serious about photography. You don't even need a digital SLR to be serious about photographer. BUT, for many people, upgrading to a FF DSLR is the logical upgrade path once they become serious about photography. It's one thing to have the option of getting an FF camera but not wanting to, but for someone using the Pentax system, the FF upgrade path is not even an option. Now that Canon, Nikon, and Sony all have strong FF offerings, I think this is quite a notable omission for Pentax to make if they want to capture the serious consumer and professional market. I definitely don't think it's "gadget elitism" at all to mention the limited upgrade path that a complete lack of FF bodies presents.

2) It's a 100-400mm competitor yet it only reaches out to 250? 400mm on Canon APS-C is 400*1.62=almost 650mm. 250mm on Pentax APS-C is 250*1.5 or 375mm. Big difference there...

But, I guess it's the best Pentax can do, since they don't make any zoom longer than 250mm. Yet another limit of the system.

I'm not saying that Pentax makes bad cameras. They make some excellent, full-featured camera bodies. But their overall system is lacking compared to the big 2 of Canon and Nikon. Maybe this isn't an issue for an amateur photographer who plans to stick with mostly the kit lens and just one or two extra lenses. But for someone who plans to get very serious in photography, this is a big consideration to make. I know that in a few years, I will be upgrading to FF from my 40D.


As for the commentas comparing the Pentax 12-24 to the Canon 10-22.

These lenses cost almost the same. Amazon lists the 12-24 at $700 and the Canon 10-22 at $770. The Pentax doesn't go to 10mm. The Pentax shows stronger CA. The Pentax shows more distortion even though it's not as wide. The Pentax lacks a quiet, fast ultrasonic motor. And yet it costs about the same. The Pentax lens is also heavily based on a Tokina design, which you can buy for $400. Why the $300 markup just because of the Pentax logo? I don't think this lens brings anything interesting to the table. And it's horrible value for money.

 

[alfa147x]

used 5D any day!

 

[996GT2]

..

 

[slashbinslashbash]

1) Of course you don't NEED a FF DSLR to be serious about photography. You don't even need a digital SLR to be serious about photographer. BUT, for many people, upgrading to a FF DSLR is the logical upgrade path once they become serious about photography. It's one thing to have the option of getting an FF camera but not wanting to, but for someone using the Pentax system, the FF upgrade path is not even an option. Now that Canon, Nikon, and Sony all have strong FF offerings, I think this is quite a notable omission for Pentax to make if they want to capture the serious consumer and professional market. I definitely don't think it's "gadget elitism" at all to mention the limited upgrade path that a complete lack of FF bodies presents.

Well, in some ways it's a good thing that Pentax and other brands are concentrating on crop bodies. The reason why I went FF with Canon was that I knew Canon would never make any of their best lenses for crop. The 10-22 is nice, but it's barely comparable to the 17-40 on a 5D. All of Canon's L lenses and all of their primes are designed for FF. You are throwing away resolution and carrying extra weight by using those FF lenses on a crop body. It is left to third parties like Sigma to create crop-specific primes like the 30mm/1.4 (a great lens and my most-used lens when I had a 40D as my main body). Yes, the L's all work on crops. But their focal length ranges don't make any sense (until you move to the telephoto side, when the effective focal length multiplier of a crop body becomes an asset, not a liability).

And all of Canon's lenses get their chance to really shine on FF. The 85/1.8 on a 5D gives better results than a 50L on a crop (not to mention being a lot lighter). The 50/1.4 on FF gives better results than the 35L on a crop. You really get the most out of any non-EF-S Canon lens when you put it on a FF body. And in some ways this helps you save money in the long run. I am sure things are similar on the Nikon side, although they have less of a history of FF bodies so it's harder to make the comparison.

The reason why I went with Canon in the first place? They have the most comprehensive line-up of lenses. Nikon often has a better lens than Canon when they make a direct competitor, but Canon has many lenses that have no Nikon equivalent. This is especially evident in the 70-200 range where the only Nikon offering is the VR f/2.8, which while an awesome lens, is quite expensive, whereas Canon gives photographers 3 cheaper options.

Anyway, all of this is to say that it's not necessarily a bad thing that some camera makers are focusing exclusively on crop bodies. In the end, they will have better crop lenses (and already do in some cases). Canon and Nikon don't really have that option because of the huge range of FF lenses they already offer. Sony got into FF to show that they could compete with the big boys. Pentax and Panasonic/Olympus are going the other direction and building crop sensor ecosystems that already kick the ass of the crop choices from Canon and Nikon. I must admit, I've never really browsed Pentax's crop prime lineup, but it is surprisingly extensive.

 

[ElFenix]

it's a 100-400 competitor because on pentax's current cameras it covers a similar angle of view to a 100-400 lens on a 35 mm camera. in 'classic' terms it is equivalent to 90-375 ~f/5.6. there's a reason that the market settled on certain angles of view for lenses, pentax recognizes that, and seeks to recreate it (hence the 50-135). canon, meanwhile, leaves a bit to be desired in that regard.


as for super wides, i have the sigma and it works just fine.


i don't think someone can really 'plan' to really get into photography. it either happens or it doesn't. and if down the line that person has to switch systems because they're somehow limited, unless the system has become an orphan, selling the stuff isn't much of a problem. if i were to sell my 40D and buy a 5D2 i'd also sell the crop lenses i have. it's really not that different. :shrug:

 

[martensite]

If you're shooting super tele and/or fast action, pentax is not for you.

Otherwise, it's a great system..IQ and color are top notch. Despite all the L-hype, I haven't seen anything from these lenses that the DA*s cannot do IQ-wise when used properly. And I personally prefer the richer color from the DA*s and Limiteds.

DA*16-50/2.8, 50-135/2.8 and/or 60-250/4 should suffice for most amateur use. These lenses hold up very well against their competitors out there. If you really want a long tele, there are some offerings from Sigma such as the excellent 100-300/4 and the 150-500 (not sure how good this one is).

Get a 50/1.4 or one of the FA limiteds for low light shooting. All stabilized on the pentax bodies.

What irritates me most about the Pentax lineup is
-the inability to turn off dark frame subtraction on the K20D/K-7.
-the lack of a teleconverter. Pentax really needs to work on this.
-relatively poor AF-C system. I think this will be fixed in the next K-body.
And yeah, lower prices would be nice. I got my 16-50 and 50-135 before the price hike, so I didn't feel the pinch.

 

[alexruiz]

If I had $1k, I would also get the K-7

Seriously, all the talk about "more lenses selection" applies only if you are very serious about photography, which 98% of the users are not.

Besides, the immense majority of the dSLR users shoot with the kit lenses, and the Pentax kit lenses are better. Of all the parents at school, my wife is always taking the best pictures. Yes, she shoots with a prime, but even when she shoots with the kit lens (K100D) she gets better results than the other's kit lenses It helps also that some people use a 75-300 in a D300 to shoot indoors... ignorant show offs

For the K-7 sensor, it is Pentax's flagship, they just need to tune it right with firmware to get the kind of amazing performance the K-x gets at high ISO (the best at high ISO of all the APS-c cameras) Besides, between "clean" detailed down images and "noisy" detailed ones, I'll take the noisy ones... I can clean up noise in software, but I cannot add detail

If you shoot sports, a D300 is the minimum I would take, but then again, the gear doesn't make the photographer, it just helps.

Pentax also makes some of the best, if not the best prime lenses. All you need is a good telephoto, a good prime and you are set to shoot as semipro. Coming from a point a shoot, the K-7 will be a huge improvement. In fact, I might recommend a k-x kit with the DA-L 18-55 and the 55-200. The kit is coming close to $600. Use the other $400 to get a pancake prime.