Camera suggestions

[Denver Road Doug]

It might not be unfair, but it sure isn't helpful.

I disagree.  I provided positive recommendations on two different brands.  Someone having a brand that they would NOT recommend is not unusual.

I could post "hey do whatever you like, 'it's your railroad'  , Canon and Nikon and Olympus and Sony are all great"....

....would THAT be more helpful? 

Nikon will likely survive without me, it's ok people....move along.   

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I guess, but it just leaves me wondering.

I mean, if the issue is "don't use Nikon, they don't honor their warranties", it's a whole lot different than "don't use Nikon, they're crap for night time photography".

I'm guessing, though, based on what you're saying, that it's more the former than the latter.

[jdcolombo]

I really need to think about the things I use my camera for.  As some have pointed out, DOF is often better with small sensor cameras, while the flexibility and superior optics, the ability to use filters and the flexibility of SLRs (and the ability to shoot RAW) are of great interest, especially for landscape photography.  My solution might be one of each.  As much as I would like a higher end SLR than my (deceased) Canon Rebel, I have buried two in the past three years due to harsh settings, so the thought of bringing $2500 worth of camera into the field has limited appeal.

Marc pointed out something quite new to me.  I had been shooting my layout with a Canon Rebel 4Ti and cranking the aperture down to f25-29 for DOF.  Even with a tripod and remote trigger, I found a certain softness to the photos that eluded me.  This is a revelation.

Pro cameras like the Canon 5D Mk III and the equivalent Nikons are built to withstand terrible field conditions.  These are the cameras that pros use in reporting from the Middle East, or wildlife shooting in jungles in Narobi or winter in Alaska.  The cameras themselves have weather-sealed all-magnesium bodies; the high-end lenses (e.g., Canon L's) are all weather sealed and so forth.  If you really are taking photos in difficult conditions outdoors, you should seriously look at investing in a pro body - and again, going on the used market to get a discontinued version (e.g., a 5D MkII instead of a Mk III or a Nikon D3 instead of a D4) will save a ton, although these are still expensive cameras even used - probably in the $2000 range if you get one from a reputable used equipment dealer like B&H or Adorama.   But that investment up front beats $500 out the door every couple of years because you're using a consumer-grade camera in conditions that call for a pro-grade.  The 5D (original) that I have was used by a pro wildlife photographer.  It has scratches and paint nicks all over the body, but everything else works like new.  It was built to take a beating, unlike my old 20D, which was a fine camera, but would have died a very early death in the conditions the 5D was used for.  When I'm taking layout photos or snapping pics of my 1-year-old granddaughter, I use the 70D.  When I go to Teton or Yellowstone, I take the 5D, despite it being rather "primitive" compared to today's SLR's.

As for depth-of-field, Bob Gilmore is correct that it just isn't an issue anymore for things like modeling.  Buy Helicon Focus, set your camera at f/8 or f/11, hook it to your computer and that's the end of that.

And finally, I'd recommend investing in pro lenses, too.  The two Canon L lenses I have (the f/4 75-200mm and 17-40mm zooms) are just better than consumer lenses - better optics, sharper throughout the f-stop range, weather-sealed, etc.  Plus, high-end lenses don't depreciate; I can sell either of my L lenses today for about what I paid for them.  This is one area of photography where the used market doesn't save you a lot, because high-end lenses simply don't depreciate unless they are damaged or replaced by a seriously-upgraded version of the same lens (which is rare, but happens occasionally, like Canon's 100-400mm L zoom).

John C.

[Lemosteam]

If you want something for traveling, seriously, just go get an LG G4 or IPhone 6. My G4 has killed my need for a P&S camera.

^^^^^This!  I cannot come close to the clarity of my G3 phone with any of my Canon DSLR or point and shoots.

Bet you could find a used one for dirt.

There are devices that allow you to mount a phone to a tripod, monopod, etc.

Case in point:

https://goo.gl/photos/zasAHiDN3yDDkdad8

[Denver Road Doug]

I'm guessing, though, based on what you're saying, that it's more the former than the latter.

Fair enough, it is most definitely warranty/customer service related.

I wouldn't be as "brutal" about a personal preference deal or if one manufacturer wasn't as suited for a specific task but overall had a good, supported product.  (i.e. your "nighttime photography" example)   THAT would indeed be good information, but unfortunately I don't have anything like that that "softens the blow" so to speak.   I don't feel like Nikon deserves any qualifications...."Never Again" makes a pretty good statement in my book.

[basementcalling]

In 2007, I was very impressed with the specs and reviews of the ground-breaking Nikon D7000, . 

This year (2015), I bought the second successor to the Nikon D7000...the D7200, which gives me a resolution of 24.2 Mp, a superior sensor (the best DX format camera sensor according to DxOMark...bar none) and more intuitive controls...and the BEST focus and dynamic balance quality photos I've EVER used or taken!  And, it retains everything I loved about the D7000.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

Ii saw a Nikon D7200 in Costco yesterday and almost fell over in shock at the price. $1475 for the kit. body plus lens. Might have been two, don't remember. How much lower would a used D7000 be?

I had a Pentax SLR I bought my first year in college and it took great photos for me until I switched to digital. At that time my photography was mostly fishing related, so a waterproof Pentax it was. My W20 is very long in the tooth, but still does alright on the water where my cell phone shall never travel.

I am playing my with Note 5 camera. Supposedly the same as the s6 that the cell phone folks raved about but with a larger sensor. It will never be a DSLR, but I bought one of those $14 attachable lens kits and the macro lens is not actually horrible. For in progress shots of layout projects and simply for capturing a scene to look for errors and problems it is fine. If I were to want to do a print article, however, I would feel much better with a real camera.

Interesting thread.

[tom mann]

You can use the lens tool on dpreview.com to find the sweet spot of a particular lens (if they benchmarked it).  The lens I use isn't on there, but a similar Sony lens shows softness until f8-f11 and then diminishing until f32. I use F20 as a compromise between sharpness and DoF. I could shoot F8 and use Helicon, which I do when I want maximum sharpness.

[Scottl]

Lots of great insights and reference material emerging here.  I'm still trying to sort out my needs, but I have a lot more to work with now.  Thanks everyone.

[nstars]

To make it even a little bit more complicated, if you really want the sharpest pictures (with or without Helicon Focus) go for a prime lens with a fixed focal length. You can really notice that these lenses are optimized for one focal length. On the other hand, given all the discussions between the different brands (canon, nikon), go for what seems the best for you and what fits your budget.

Marc

[John]

Unless you are going to get really serious about photography, just about any of the prosumer DSLRs in the $800-1000 range should do you just fine ..  and most of the new point and shoots are good quality also ...

[tom mann]

Yet another thing to consider.  Professional equipment doesn't really depreciate that much.  Lenses might be a little cheaper, and surprisingly, even bodies hold their value well.  If you can afford it and think you'll be in it long term, just go right to the pro equipment.  Cheaper than getting prosumer and then reselling.

[Bob Bufkin]

Very happy with my Nikon D3200 and I have a Nikon D90 which I keep as a backup.  Both now way past warranty and never had any problems with them.  I like the flexibility of using different lens which my phone camera does not have.  I normally use my Tamron 14-200 mm lens.  Did have an older Tamron lens crap out on me a few years back.  Tamron lens are usually cheaper than the Nikon equivalent lens.  The D3200 has the capability to do video but I have never used it for this.  Lot of my railfan friends have other brands and are happy with them. 

Was looking at cameras on the net the other day and found a Hazzleblad which cost more than my new car.  $26,000 for a camera.  WOW.

[wcfn100]

The D3200 has the capability to do video but I have never used it for this.

So does the D90.

I have a D40 and D90.  I split time with them about 50/50.  The D40 is just so much easier grab and go sometimes.

Jason

[Bob Bufkin]

Jason I had a D40 but gave it to my sister when I got the D90.  Got the D3200 at a great price when the Annapolis Navy Exchange had their grand opening. 

[wcfn100]

Jason I had a D40 but gave it to my sister when I got the D90.  Got the D3200 at a great price when the Annapolis Navy Exchange had their grand opening.

I've looked at the new light tight boxes (as my HS art teacher would say), but I don't think I'll spend any money on another DX camera.  I figure in the next 5 years I'll be ready for something new.

Jason