I need some objective help in picking a new DSLR

[ijyt]

Hey there, I'm a new member here but I've asked this question before on other forums and I'm having difficulty finding a conclusive answer.

I'm planning on purchasing a new DSLR that I want to last me for yonks, and I've narrowed it down to about four choices:

• Canon 60D
• Canon 7D
• Nikon D7000
• Pentax K-5

Now one concern to me is probably weatherproofing. The K-5 is clearly the best choice in this regard and if that's all I was worried about I wouldn't have a problem. Does anyone know how the other brands fare in unpleasant conditions? The biggest concerns to me are:

• Beaches/Deserts = wind and sand.
• Beaches = salty wind/water spray
• Cold/humid areas = snow, rain, condensation

The Pentax also has the added bonus of weather-sealed kit lenses and in-body stabilization, something I'd have to pay extra for with Canon and Nikon lenses.

However, the Canons definitely win on the video front, I'm not entirely sure how important this is to me right now, but it'd probably be of benefit to have a DSLR that's as good with video as possible if I ever get "seriously" into the video side. If the Pentax had full manual and 60fps 720p like the Canon it'd be no contest.

The 60D is attractive because I can get it for £700 with the kit 18-55, and leaves me with the most monetary breathing room for getting lenses I want, which right now are a prime, a macro and a telephoto. (Note: I have no investment in lenses at the moment, my current DSLR is an Olympus E-500. Fine and dandy, but I'd like more features).

Ergonomics are a final factor, my hands are massive. Fingers like a daddy longlegs.

Sorry if this turned into a ramble with no clear question, I'm simply stumped. I can't pick a DSLR from spec-sheets simply because each one has a feature the other doesn't that I'd like to have.

Thanks for reading. If I've missed anything out I'll probably edit it in later.

[inkista]

Yeah, the Pentax has the best weather-sealing, the others have gaskets in strategic places, but they're not full weather-sealed.

To me, the only one on the list that's not like the others is the 7D, simply from a generational point of view. The 60D, D7000, and K-5 were all just announced a month and a half ago, and so are of the same generation and roughly the same tiers (the 60D is probably lower than the K-5 and D7000 by a bit). The 7D is now 18 months old. They are all roughly in the same tier, so you've at least figured out the feature set you want.

The only flaw in your thinking, for me personally (and this may not apply to you) is the idea that going for a higher-tiered camera means you're going to keep it longer. Think about how you go through computers and cellphones, and contemplate if getting a higher feature set has actually helped you keep the device longer, or if you simply enjoyed using the higher specced features, but still upgrade routinely. Most folks seem to flip through bodies at the rate of every three to five years. Paying more and going up-tier simply tends to get you more usability features. These are still digital electronic devices. Unlike the mostly-mechanical film cameras of old, they don't tend to last for decades. dSLRs tend to die sooner than old film SLRs. Again, think computers and cellphones.

[RichardTaylor]

What do you mostly want to use your new camera for?

[ijyt]

Originally Posted by inkista

Yeah, the Pentax has the best weather-sealing, the others have gaskets in strategic places, but they're not full weather-sealed.

To me, the only one on the list that's not like the others is the 7D, simply from a generational point of view. The 60D, D7000, and K-5 were all just announced a month and a half ago, and so are of the same generation and roughly the same tiers (the 60D is probably lower than the K-5 and D7000 by a bit). The 7D is now 18 months old. They are all roughly in the same tier, so you've at least figured out the feature set you want.

The only flaw in your thinking, for me personally (and this may not apply to you) is the idea that going for a higher-tiered camera means you're going to keep it longer. Think about how you go through computers and cellphones, and contemplate if getting a higher feature set has actually helped you keep the device longer, or if you simply enjoyed using the higher specced features, but still upgrade routinely. Most folks seem to flip through bodies at the rate of every three to five years. Paying more and going up-tier simply tends to get you more usability features. These are still digital electronic devices. Unlike the mostly-mechanical film cameras of old, they don't tend to last for decades. dSLRs tend to die sooner than old film SLRs. Again, think computers and cellphones.

Yeah, I ran into the "upgrade bug" as I call it with my PC, but I'm adamant that I'll keep that to a minimum. Especially with DSLRs, the amount of money they cost makes it unfeasible for me as a student to upgrade regularly. Same with my iPhone 3G, as much as I'd like an iPhone 4, the 3G is doing me fine.

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

What do you mostly want to use your new camera for?

All sorts. There's not one thing that I'm exclusively going to be doing. But at the moment it'll be mostly macrophotography of microfossils/small fossils due to my Uni course, so I'll need as much detail as I can get.

[RichardTaylor]

All of them will be fine for general purpose shooting and macros up to 1:1
However if was shooting a lot of Macro I would consider one of the Canon (60D) mainly because of the CANON MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro Lens.

[inkista]

Ok, this is just me being incredibly cheap, but why do you feel you need a dSLR? Are you sure you couldn't get by with a waterproof P&S camera instead, if you all you need is a camera for macro work (I'm assuming you're photographing fossils on-site, hence the weatherproofing worries)? You'd be spending a helluva lot less money.

The thing is, if you want to do macro work, you'll probably need to budget another $400-$1000 for a macro lens along with the camera body. In that case, I'd say going with an entry level body or a used dSLR might be a better choice for you, so you'll have money for the lens, too. While you can shoot macro without a macro lens, it's much easier to use a macro lens, and if that's going to be your shooting mainstay, it'll be worth it to have the proper tool for the job.

[ijyt]

Originally Posted by inkista

Ok, this is just me being incredibly cheap, but why do you feel you need a dSLR? Are you sure you couldn't get by with a waterproof P&S camera instead, if you all you need is a camera for macro work (I'm assuming you're photographing fossils on-site, hence the weatherproofing worries)? You'd be spending a helluva lot less money.

The thing is, if you want to do macro work, you'll probably need to budget another $400-$1000 for a macro lens along with the camera body. In that case, I'd say going with an entry level body or a used dSLR might be a better choice for you, so you'll have money for the lens, too. While you can shoot macro without a macro lens, it's much easier to use a macro lens, and if that's going to be your shooting mainstay, it'll be worth it to have the proper tool for the job.

Well, I do have a waterproof PnS. But it's not what I want. Once I got a hold of my dad's E-500 a few years ago I fell in love with photography as a hobby, and I want the flexibility of a DSLR. I know what modern P&S' are capable of in the right hands, and I know getting a good DSLR won't make me a better photographer.

If you think getting a 550D now and spending more money on lenses is a better idea, I'll consider it. I can always sell the body later and upgrade. Which is actually another thing I had been considering, having a good body but not the quality glass to back it up with.

[inkista]

I think a 550D or a used/refurbed 50D might be worth considering. Maybe even a used/refurbished 500D or 40D. dSLRs depreciate rapidly, as desirability tends to fade with age, even while still new. Within 6 months, the 60D, D7000, and K-5 are likely to go for lower prices than they're selling for now. Right now, they're at their most expensive. Lenses, otoh, retain value much longer, since they're not subject to the same rapid updates as bodies are, and can be shared across bodies.

Just as an example, the 50D MSRP when it was released was around $1300 for the body. Today, you can find one new for less than $1000, and used/refurbed, they're going in the $800 range.

[Chris Weller]

I agree with the others. I would spend money on good lenses before buying an expensive body. A good lens will last you many years with proper care. However, you will be wanting a new body after three years.

Also, the newest bodies with 15+ megapixels are capable of outresolving lenses. If you want to squeeze the most quality out of your gear, good glass will be a critical component.

Chris

[TheMoons678]

This is me being cheap as usual, but yesterday I bought a used Nikon D200 with 22k clicks for $350 and I'm very impressed. It seems to be built like a tank and is weather sealed. You could get a Nikon 60mm 2.8D AF macro (1:1) for under $300.

I personally think its smart to test the waters of the DSLR world with used equipment. Sure, my D200 has technology thats 5 yrs old, but it performs wonderfully and provides much more bang for the buck than buying a new D7000. If a year from now I decide that I'm looking for more in a camera, I can sell the D200 for exactly (if not more) than what I paid for it. By buying used older equipment you can really find out what features you need in a new camera, rather than just jumping straight into the newest gear.