Professional grade camera?

[manarak]

For some new professional endeavors, I will need a camera able to shoot good quality pix, both with flash and non-flash.

Reading reviews and advice helps to sort out some duds, but at the end there's a choice of 20 or so cameras which all look like they could be a good choice.


What would you advise me to buy, considering:
- I want wide angle but also a fair zoom, and I hate swapping objectives
- Point & Shoot automatic performance should be good
- I won't need much more than 10 or 12 MP, but want crystal clear pix
- low light and high ISO performance
- The camera could well be a second hand older model

[TEERAK]

If I were going to get a Canon point and shoot I'd either get the S90 or the SX210 IS

[manarak]

ah, should be less point & shoot than that!

I'm looking in the SLR-like format with pixel densities under 5

[tomscam]

I have been looking at buying a new camera myself lately.

I don't know how much you want to pay but maybe check out cnet as they break down all the specs and usually have a video going through the pros and cons of certain cameras.
I've previously had a Canon SLR and liked it but it all comes down to personal preference.

[manarak]

yes, I generally like Canon.

The EOS 7D looks like the best choice, it is pricey though.
1800 USD for a 18-135 kit.

Or maybe the EOS 550D ?
1000 USD for a 18-135 kit

[manarak]

550D seems the way to go...
I don't need the 4 extra shots per second the 7D provides.

Does the 550D have any runner-ups worth considering?

[pacman]

Have you considered one of the Micro Four Third offerings? The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 & the Olympus EPL-1 (or EPL-2) are both excellent cameras.

They are so much better than any Point & Shoot with interchangeable lenses & DSLR-size sensors.

I am also a fan of Canon with the EOS 7D being my personal choice. But Canon lenses are expensive & it is the lens system that you are buying into.

I thoroughly recommended Azza to buy his Canon 550D. It received a stunning review on www.dpreview.com. It can hardly be separated from the 7D but it doesn't have the solid body construction.

I have long liked Pentax for their stand against CaNikon & the fact they build their image stablisiing into the camera body. This makes their lenses cheaper & lighter than the big two.

So I would buy the Pentax K-7 if I was upgrading today but with the next Photokina looming, I will wait to see what advances are announced there.

However, a Pentax model that on the face of it seemed a cheap irrelevance was released last year that demands a second look. It is the very small & light bodied Pentax K-x.

It is the smallest DSLR made & comes with outstanding low light performance. It seems Pentax built the camera for exactly the role we here on the forum require. Small, light, robust, cheap (comparatively) with the finest low light, high ISO image quality of almost any camera made. Dpreview offers a similar opinion.

With a simple straight forward interface & excellent ergonomics I could have easily have dismissed this camera but all the reviews I have seen have been glowing. I intend to look further into this undertstated sleeper of a model.

Plus for Manarak's benefit, all the old Pentax lenses will fit & they are selling on eBay for peanuts. That is a huge saving right there.

[Snick]

For a full SLR I would go with the 550D, the only drawback is that it has the consumer casing. If you were using the camera under hostile conditions, than you might want something else, 7D or rumored 60D

The S90 however gives me 80-90% of what I would get with a SLR. There is no sacrifice in image quality under 'normal' conditions.
Its drawbacks compared to SLR
-slower Frames Per Second, this is not the camera for shooting sports
-internal flash
-lack of strong zoom, above 100mm

[Snick]

2nd Hand, look for a 7D or 5D mark II. Maybe even a 5D if cheap enough. But hard to see those being cheaper than a new 550D

[pacman]

Given the list of requirements that Manarak spells out, I think the low light & high ISO performance to be by far the most important consideration.

I was just looking at the K-x review in dpreview & read this in their summary of the high ISO comparisons -

If you need better low light performance than this (the K-x), then going full-frame is pretty much your only option.

It is rated miles better than the K-7 at low light, a comment that pulled me up very sharp. Given the all round high rating for the K-7 in all conditions, that is a hell of a boast.

Then in one of the forum chats on the K-x was this post from someone unknown to me -

The way I see it (not a brand fanboy): this is the best digital camera performance/quality/cost ever released. Just like that.

I qualify as a brand fanboy for Pentax as I have had excellent results from them over the years. I don't mind admitting I fancied a K-7 but with the K-x being so much cheaper in comparison, I now find myself reconsidering my next move.

[tomscam]

Pacman, I think you've sold me.

I was previously looking at the Pentax K-x but assumed that because of it's cheaper price tag that it must be sub-standard. Just read a couple of reviews and they are talking it up. For $650 AU it does appear to be great value for money.

I was going to get a Canon but now I think I'll settle on the Pentax.

Cheers for the great advice.

[pacman]

Cheers Tom. Happy to be of service. It was some outrageously bullish comments I read that made me even look at the K-x.

I had given it no consideration whatsoever & I wondered why they even brought this to the market given the plethora of good P&S & other value models around today.

But it appears that Pentax knew what they were doing & this thing has suddenly popped up as the best low light performance camera in any class, let alone for a cheaper model.

I still like the Canon 550D & note that it was rated 2 percentage points higher in the final analysis on dpreview. But nothing touches the K-x for price & the fact that any Pentax lens ever made can be fitted, & there have been some beauties, the cost to add 2nd hand Pentax lenses makes this an incredible bargain.

Remember that no Canon has inbody image stabilisation while the Pentax does. To get each lens stabilised for Canon (or Nikon) requires buying lenses with the stabilising built in. This gets very expensive & the lenses are very heavy.

I would not pretend that the K-x is the finest DSLR on the market but it does make more sense than any other.

[Rocket J. Squirrel]

Widest angle is available on full-frame dslr's such as the 5D. I often like to shoot very wide (16-18mm equivalent on 35mm full frame). This is harder to achieve with most less expensive, smaller sensor dslr's. I keep waiting for the full frame cameras to come down in price and size.

I am currently using a Canon G10 as an intermediary camera and am having mixed results. The new G11 seems much better for light sensitivity and size. All of the photos that I have seen here that are taken with the S90 continue to impress me. I may buy one to keep in my pocket.

On balance, if I had the money, I would go for the 5D Mark II despite it's large size for the extra few mm of wide angle available and the other benefits of full frame such as low light sensitivity.

Also, I really miss using an SLR. The screens on my point and shoots just don't cut it.

I would be curious to know what you decide. The 550D seems like a nice choice if full frame is not essential.

[manarak]

AH AH AH
(sorry)

If you were using the camera under hostile conditions

I think that would be in Bangkok when Jenny gives me the evil eye at Guess - thankfully, these times are over, hehe.

Seriously, I had a look at Azza's thread and his latest pics convinced me.

I went to dpreview and checked the 7D and the 550D, the only difference seems to be the casing and the speed, plus some 9 or 24 point AF which I don't understand anyway.
What I did notice was that picture quality is sensibly equal between the 2.

I then checked for some other, smaller models.
While the 4 thirds cameras are great, they are only marginally smaller if you put a zoom lens on them, they are really small only with a pancake.
And dpreview rated many of them weaker than the 550D in terms of low light performance.
Then I saw that the 550D could do 1080 HD vids and I then chose this over the others.
Also, the price is very competitive, and I don't think I will ever need anything else than the 18-135 lens.
And I'm kinda partial to Canon.

I then  read Snick's and Pacman's posts after my last one.

The K-x is really a serious competitor to the 550D.
I pondered the 2, and the HD vid @30fps and the brand made the decision.
Had I been a more hard-core photographer, I think I would have bought the K-x, because I can see its superior photographic specs.

And then I sped off to buy a 550D with a 18-135mm lens.

Battery is loading now.


Ladyboys be warned: next time I'll bring a big zoom around

[Jake_Sully]

I'd go with the canon too. After owning a few nikon's and 1 fuji, when I got my first canon I struck gold even though it was a simple point and shoot with 7mp and 12x zoom.

I never needed the higher quality personally but the pics I've seen from them are awesome. What're you after primarily, the photo snaps or 1080p output of the video?

I mean if you just want the snaps a powershot S90 or SD1400 will do the job.

I personally use a SD1000.