OP, in terms of what to go with you need to mainly consider what your intended long term uses are. In the entry level ranges all the manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony,etc) produce very capable cameras that will more than do what the average consumer is looking for. Canon and Nikon tend to be more expensive than the 4/3rds crowd and have far more extensive systems that you can buy into in terms of lighting and lens options. However their advantage doesn't really come into play until you start getting into their semi-pro to pro level gear.
If you think photography is something that you're likely to turn into a serious hobby it may be worth it to go with one of those companies just for the future expansion. If on the other hand you're like the vast majority of people who just want a camera to take good photos of family and vacations and will probably stay in the standard 18mm to 200mm focal range with maybe a wide angle then any of them will do the job for you. Best bet in that situation is to go into a photography store and play with all the various makes that fall in your price range. Base your decision on which camera feels the best and most natural in your hand.
While I'm personally a Nikon guy, the best value for money in entry level DSLR's is usually found in Olympus and Pentax lines. Especially if you like very small, very light cameras.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scothew
Theres alot of great info about nikons, canons, and everything else on www.kenrockwell.com he does reviews on the stuff and as far as i know doesnt get paid from either source or anything. |
Just a note about this, please take everything Ken Rockwell says with an extremely large grain of salt since he's the biggest fan boy for whatever happens to be either the latest and greatest or his current obsession. He's not taken particularly seriously by anyone in the real photography world so I certainly wouldn't take his word or reviews as gospel. There's some decent information on his site but taking it too seriously would be like going to Jeremy Clarkson for a serious review of a car you might actually buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemyst
I occasionally look at getting a new DSLR, to replace
my 8MP Nikon Prosumer (Coolpix 8800).
There are two things that I'm looking for:
1) at LEAST double the number of pixels (16MP)
2) a full 24mm X 36mm sensor, to make use of
previously owned Nikon 35mm AF glass.
The Coolpix is nice, but won't make anything larger
than an OK 11X14, or a nice 8X10.
I understand that Nikon does have a full sized sensor
line, now. Good. I think it's the DX line. Not sure.
|
1. Pixel density is pretty much irrelevant at this point unless you plan on
printing huge blowups..... and by huge I mean dimensions measured in feet instead of inches. With the exception of the top-of-the-line pro 24mp D3X ($7500), all of Nikon's current DSLR line are 12mp. Even the old 6mp D70 is capable of producing much higher quality images than your Coolpix 8800 so I wouldn't get hung up on the numbers. Rather go with the body that has the features you need and feels most comfortable in your hand.
2. Nikon's full frame line is the FX (D700, D3 and variants). All of your old Nikon glass will work on any of the current bodies however you won't have auto-focus on older glass with the entry level bodies (D60 and D3000) as they don't have an AF motor built into the body. The D90 and above will auto-focus all Nikon glass since AF was introduced however as mentioned above your TTL and metering by distance will be hit or miss. Full frame glass on a crop sensor (ie. the DX line) will simply produce a crop equivalency in the lens' effective focal range. Nikon's DX crop is 1.6x which means the focal length of full frame glass is 40% longer on a DX body than an FX. For example, using your old 50mm F1.8 normal lens on a DX body will be the equivalent of using a 70mm lens on a film or FX body.