[Manic78]

OK, let me make this clear..... This is not the position I am in, but if you had 2k ish to spend what camera would you get if you were me?

Bear in mind, I currently have a Sony a100, with a couple of lenses and flash. I really like the layout etc of the Sony, really get on well with it but the ISO performance is doing my head in and it seems to search to focus in anything but perfect light. (May just be my skill or lack of it.)

Also, I dislike using flash intensely. I really hate it. I'm looking for, hypothetically, really good ISO performance.

Also, would I really miss the IS in the Sony?

Ooh, questions questions even just on a flight of fancy!!

P.S, I have no brand loyalty. Only used Sony. For some unknown reason I have something against Nikon. I have no idea why, considering I've never even picked one of their cameras up.

[RobDickinson]

£2000 and starting out right now?

Thats about $5000 to me in NZ. $4k gets me a 5dmkII or a D700 , too much on the body alone.

50D doesnt get me , 40D is a cracking camera and the price is right, cheaper than the D300 and for me equaly as usefull. And at $1500 or so a decent price leaving plenty for glass.

So 40D($1500) + 10-20sigma ($800) + 17-55f2.8 ($800) + 70-200f2.8($2k).

Would also be tempted with an old 5D for landscapes at $3k + a 17-40L and a 24-70f2.8, probably a touch over budget.


Nikon would be nice, D300 handles fine but no better an image maker than the 40D, and $5k doesnt get me the 'good stuff' , D700, 12-24f2.8, 24-70f2.8

[Yandros]

Oooh, sounds fun - I'll play!

Btw nice one Rob - 40D+17-55mm f2.8 IS. I reckon that would be my Canon choice too.

I'll go for your hated Nikon

The D300 is currently the high ISO king of the APS-C sensors, so I'll opt for that. I also absolutely love the feel of my D200, so if you want an upgrade that'll feel special...gotta be a semi-pro body along those lines.

Sharpest lens on the block is the Nikon 16-85VR, so you don't have to manage without image stabilisation.

To help you with your low light shooting, I'll throw in the good old Sigma 30mm f1.4. That also gives you a nice shallow DOF to play with when the mood takes you.

Finally, I love your close-up still life stuff, so you really shouldn't be without the Nikon 105mm f2.8 macro. Also a superb portrait lens

If you absolutely must have a long or superwide I'd maybe drop to a D90 and add the Nikon 70-300VR/Sigma 10-20mm.

[Manic78]

Good stuff to work with here, thank you.

[RobDickinson]

Originally Posted by Yandros

I'll go for your hated Nikon

I dont hate the nikon! I rather like the D300, but its $3000 vs $1500 for the 40D and its no way even close to being twice the camera, $1500 goes a long way on glass which will make more difference.

D90 may be a goer but not convinced by the AF module?

[Manic78]

Moving the goalposts, say I was to P/X an A100 with 2 random lenses and a flash unit..............

And maybe move to 2.5k?

*****Wavy lines and dream sequence*****

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

I dont hate the nikon! I rather like the D300, but its $3000 vs $1500 for the 40D and its no way even close to being twice the camera, $1500 goes a long way on glass which will make more difference.

D90 may be a goer but not convinced by the AF module?

I meant Manic78. He's admitted to an irrational dislike of Nikon

I'm not seeing a lot of action stuff in Manic's Flickr page, so I guess the D90 might be ok.

[Manic78]

I agree very little action stuff, however I have recently shot a catwalk show (Don't think I've hit the big time, the clothes and models were spot on, but it was for charidy mate) and this is what has led to my hatred of the old a100s poor iso.

[Yandros]

Oookay, well suggestion #1 for £2500 might be

D700+24-70mm f2.8.

That's obviously the 'canine's wedding tackle' in high ISO shooting, AF performance and lens sharpness.

Trouble is of course you're looking at big bucks at every turn for more lenses -14-24 f2.8 sets you back another £1K, £450 for a macro, and £1K for a telephoto). So to get a well rounded setup you'll be looking at £5K before your finished.

Nah, I reckon stay APS-C unless you win the lottery...will consider plan B...

[Yandros]

Hmm, I think with £2500 I'd probably pretty much stay with my first suggestion - D300

Nikon don't do a fast zoom with VR, you get one or the the other - so I'd be tempted to double up and get the Nikon 16-85VR and a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. You mentioned a catwalk shoot, and I think you'd want a fast zoom rather than a prime there, so the Tamron really has to go on the wish list.

Seeing your style, I'd say a Sigma 10-20mm would suit you, as would the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR macro.

So that leaves £300 to spend...

Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Nikon 70-300VR maybe?

[RobDickinson]

Catwalk etc? Has to be a speedlight in there then?

[Sorj]

for me 40D with 24-104mm L IS...
that would still leave a decent amount of dough for more glass.

For canon IS is on lens and the benifit for this is that you can actually see it via the viewfinder. The version i have suggest provides about 3 stops of IS.