Thread: Question on DSLRs

I am not a huge fan on taking pictures, but when travelling or when the lighting is correct, I feel it is neccessary to snap one or two or a few hundred. Currently using..gasp.. point and shoot or cell phone . I am looking at DSLRs and wondering which route to go- small or medium format.

I guess the only question I have is, are you really able to tell the difference between, say a 1ds march iii and a leica s2, or hasselblad h4d-40/50/60? I understand that there is a jump in mp and iso and once you blow the picture up, you would be able to tell the difference in pixels, as well as the medium format capturing more scenery, but are the leica's and hasselblad's really worth the extra money for an average photographer?

Short answer: NO. There are so many good cameras that are relatively cheap which would suit you perfectly..unless of course money is no object. Unfortunately I'm not up to speed with the latest cameras out there, but you will have lots of good options for well under $1000 if you hunt around.

thanks for the input, alex.

Let me just say that i don't think the words average and Leica/Hasselblad should ever be in the same sentence, even if money is not an option. There are plenty of options from $2k and less that are amazing cameras, especially when all you're comparing them to are a point and shoot or phone camera. Hasselblad cameras are, for the most part, studio cameras as they are so expensive. Leica are amazing cameras and have a more versatile option, but considering the price point I often find that despite the better image quality, most people buy them to be able to say that they own a Leica.

Head over to your local Best Buy, Walmart or any electronic shop really to just get your hands on some stuff to feel. Simply put, no, it is not worth the large amounts of extra money. Hasselblad and Leica should, I believe, only be considered when you are not only a huge fan of taking photos, but also making money off of taking them.

There is really no need for a Leica/Hasselblad if you are just going to take photos for fun.

Any DSLR from the big guys (Canon and Nikon) will fit the bill just fine. Money not an option get yourself a 5D MkII and up from Canon or comparable from Nikon and you will be a happy guy.

My biggest .02 cents I can give you is... lens are where the real investment in made. The body not so much... so if you want to splurge don't get caught up on the body... get yourself some nice lens.

yeah, as far as lenses, i would be looking at either a 70-200 or 28-300 as well as an ultra wide.

Originally Posted by schmidty

yeah, as far as lenses, i would be looking at either a 70-200 or 28-300 as well as an ultra wide.

Look into Prime lens (not zoom) those are the best....

Originally Posted by schmidty

yeah, as far as lenses, i would be looking at either a 70-200 or 28-300 as well as an ultra wide.

I'd say stick with the stock lens and a 28-300 to start, I wouldnt go balls deep with an ultra wide off the bat until you get into the camera more

There is a lot to taking photos with a DSLR that will take time and practice

Originally Posted by bludevl80

Look into Prime lens (not zoom) those are the best....

that is what i was told.. "get either a 300 or 400 prime." If I were to go prime, would a 28 and 300 suffice?

I had a year of film photo in school, we were only working with 35mm but I did learn a lot. I understand there is a difference, but I look forward to applying what was learned to my DSLR. Even though that class was taken about 6 years ago

I'd go with two setups:

- Travel: Canon S95
- SLR: Canon 7D, Canon 70-200 f/2.8, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (or if you prefer Nikon - Nikon D7000, Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8)