T.O.P. Ten Recommended Cameras: #3

To see higher-numbered choices, select "Recommended Cameras" under the "Categories" heading in the right-hand column.

At the outset of this list project, I warned you that there were going to be a couple of choices you would think were cop-outs. Choice #6 was originally intended to be one of those; it was supposed to be, "An entry-level DSLR of the brand of your choice." But the more I thought about it, the more I thought people would object to that—the purpose of a list it to make choices, not leave them open. So I ended up picking the compact Olympus E-420, based mainly on its current price.

Of course, not long thereafter, it occurred to me that what I had really done was cop out on copping out.

This time, I'm determined; my resolve is steely. This choice is going to be a real cop-out, dammit. Choice #3 is: "A mid-level 4/3 or APS-C DSLR of the brand of your choice."

A cop-out...sure. Yes. (Finally.) But, as usual, there is method to my madness.

First of all, this is a list of recommendations. For most photographers, I really do feel that the best possible choice of cameras in the current market is...a mid-level 4/3 or APS-C DSLR of the brand of your choice. For most photographers who are ambitious to do good work but who are not pros, this level represents a sweet spot. Putting significantly more money into a pro camera is often not the smartest move, and spending an appreciable portion of this money on a significantly less capable entry-level camera might also not be the smartest move. This tier—these cameras—represent a sweet spot for the manufacturers as well; these are superlative products that utilize many of the previous pro-camera generation's innovations of technology, but that don't have the cut corners (example: poor viewfinders) and dumbed-down feature sets (example: "scene modes") of cheaper models.

So which one should you choose, exactly? It isn't that important. That's what I'm trying to say.

It’s really unfortunate that with the photography hobby exploding in the digital era, so many people have been gulled into the false, not to mention asinine belief that brand loyalty has something significant to do with photography, and that minute differences in "image quality" (the very concept of which I could take issue with) mean anything at all to anyone. As long as you have a competent tool, the brand of camera you choose just doesn't matter. Whatever you choose, it’ll have some strengths, it’ll have some weaknesses, and you’ll get used to both if you use the thing enough. When they look at your work, nobody cares what brand camera you used, and you don’t get any credit one way or the other (i.e., positive or negative) for the name on the box you happen to choose. What you want from a camera is for it to be "good enough.” Beyond that, I’m here to tell you that the next incremental improvement in your work is not going to come from buying a slightly better box.

Sorry, didn’t mean this to be a rant. I realize that most of you reading this already know all this. But seriously, here’s how to buy a camera: figure out what lenses you need first, and who has them; figure how big a camera you want to carry; figure out (from that and from the pricing and your budget) what level or tier you’re going to be looking in (and this level is a good one); then pick one and get on with it. Photography is all about looking: looking at the world, and looking at pictures. It’s not about cameras. Well, it is, but it only begins with the camera. It doesn’t end there. Shooting skills, visual sensitivity, craft and technique have more to do with how good your pictures will look than the brand name on the box. With apologies to all those anxious corporate marketing and advertising departments out there.

This group currently includes:

The Nikon D90 (12.3 MP, $930)
The Olympus E-30 (12.3 MP, $1100)
The Canon 50D (15.1 MP, $1120)
The Pentax K20D (14.6 MP, $670)
The Sony A700 (12.2 MP, $1000).

(Prices are of this writing; check links to be sure. Note that at least two of these cameras are likely to be replaced in the next 12 months.)

 

 

This is the type of camera most of our readers own. There are a few differences between them. Choice for most people will depend on the following: brand bias; current investiture (or lack of same) in compatible lenses and other system accessories; specific feature needs or wants; habit; hand-feel and idiosyncratic ergonomic appeal; and price and purchase opportunity.

However: again: all of them are superlative products, all of them are cameras that skilled shooters could easily use to do top-quality work, and all of them are more camera than most photographers really need at a minimum. I have to mention, too, that no matter how carefully you choose, your choice will change meanings dismayingly shortly, because all of these cameras will be old news all too soon.

Okay then...within the context of "don't obsess," here are a few of the pertinent differences that might affect the choice of one or another:

• Canon and Nikon are the market leaders, with the broadest ranges of accessories, the largest selection of specialty lenses including super-telephotos, and the quickest adoption and widest accommodation by third-party software providers. Dominance can translate to profits, which then translates to re-investment in R&D. However, dominance can also translate to complacency: both companies' current cameras are based heavily on previous models, and neither the Canon nor the Nikon have body-integral image stabilization, largely because both companies make more money by putting that feature into their lenses.

• The Nikon is the only one of these cameras with video.

• The Olympus has a slightly smaller sensor. This does not have a detectable effect on image quality at most ISOs, forum hysteria notwithstanding, but it does have a noticeable effect on comparative high-ISO performance. On the plus side of the same ledger, the higher "crop factor" translates to more effective reach for telephotos of the same focal length, and the smaller coverage allows Olympus to make some of its lenses faster.

• The Pentax, Olympus and Sony all have body-integral IS, meaning it can be used with any lens, even those that Canon and Nikon do not make available with IS, and also meaning it does not need to be purchased repeatedly (and expensively) in each and every lens you buy that has it. Imaging-Resource.com has announced a verifiable protocol for testing IS, which will be coming online gradually over the coming months.

• The Pentax is the only one that is fully weather sealed, although only the DA Star lenses are also weatherproof.

• The Olympus is the only one with an articulated viewing screen.

• The Pentax is the cheapest.

• The Olympus is the prettiest.

• The Nikon has the best sensor rating at DxOmark.com. (Current ranks of this group: Nikon D90 11th, Sony A700 17th, Pentax K20D 21st, and Canon 50D 30th. The Olympus E-30 is unranked, although it would probably rank last of this group.)

• Olympus has the newest and, overall, highest-performing selection of zooms, but also, by far, the worst selection of prime (single-focal-length) lenses.

• Pentax has the best made-for-digital compact primes, which are an afterthought to the other four manufacturers.

So, the takeaway from today's recommendation: shopping—exhaustive, hysterical, argumentative, absorbing, never-ending, absurdly excessive shopping—has come to dominate many online discussions of photography. This is a distraction. A good shooter with a poorish camera will still shoot rings around an inexperienced goof with the latest, most fastidiously chosen, and most strenuously defended techno-wonder—and all of these cameras are truly excellent devices that will serve any thoughtful and hardworking photographer very, very well—very well indeed. Pick one and be done.

Mike

Friday: #1 [sic]

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Matthew Robertson: "Here's a slightly more appropriate way of listing the cameras:

The Nikon D90 (700g, $930)
The Olympus E-30 (730g, $1100)
The Canon 50D (820g, $1120)
The Pentax K20D (800g, $670)
The Sony A700 (760g, $1000)

As Miss Piggy once said, 'never eat more than you can lift.' "

Featured Comment by Shawn Barnett of Imaging-Resource.com: "Hear, hear! Though we're happy to report all the details and offer our opinions on digital cameras at Imaging-Resource.com, it's the camera you have, know, and use that will get you the best pictures. Though I can often steer individuals to one camera or another based on features or image quality, it's also heavily based on their individual needs and biases. In the end, I'm confident that most of the SLRs on the market will serve well, because competition has forced SLR makers to produce some pretty fine equipment. People should still think about what they want from a camera, but too many wait too long and miss out on the fun of photography. (So if you haven't yet, click the button on the A900 already, Mike.)"

Featured Comment by Sam G.: "Consider this a perspective from a first time DSLR buyer.

"The way you list the strengths and weaknesses of each system, makes it seem like the choice would be simple to make. Just figure out what you want to shoot and pick the camera that best suits your needs. The problem with many first time buyers (and I think there are quite a few, even in the mid-level market) is that they really don't know what their needs are. Shooting with a DSLR is so much different than shooting with a compact digicam that it's practically impossible to use that prior experience as a basis for choosing a DSLR.

"I'll use myself as an example. After finally getting fed up with digicam's generally terrible low light image quality, I decided that I would need a DSLR to take decent pictures indoors in available light. I consider myself pretty avid (obsessive?) researcher of future purchases, but even after weeks of internet reading I still hadn't developed any criteria as cut and dry as Mike's list. It's simply because I didn't know what criteria was important. I had no experience with this sort of camera. I didn't even know what a prime lens was so how would I know that I would eventually come to enjoy shooting with them. I was still trying to relate a 5x zoom factor to an 18-55mm kit lens. The smallish view finder for low-end DSLRs is often sited as a con but if that's the first time you look through any viewfinder after coming from a digicam is a revelation. So clear and crisp. Even a D40 feels like a substantial piece of equipment.

"So even with Mike's wonderfully succinct recommendations, it's still hard to pick the best camera. It's like shopping for shoes when you don't even know your own size. I ended up with a Nikon D40, which has been wonderful, mainly because it felt better in my hands than the Canon XTi. But I can't help but think that I would have had a little more fun with a K100D had I known then...."

Mike replies: Valid concerns, for sure, Sam, and I'm sorry if today's recommendation isn't ideally helpful.

However, I think I covered this in the article at choice #6, which is why I linked to it at the beginning of today's article; the last paragraph of that earlier post addresses your concerns directly.

For the record, I think you did the right thing. I have a friend named Vitold who is a very successful software designer. He can afford any camera he wants, but I encouraged him to forego the higher-level models and start with a D60, and he loves it. The point is that he is learning his own preferences. Later, when he goes to purchase a higher-end camera, he will know more about what he likes and wants. So will you, very likely.

You must understand, too, that part of my motivation here is to counteract some of the prevailing attitudes among shoppers for ~$1k camera bodies. The arguments tend to polarize, and people say some pretty ridiculous things sometimes. This is caused in part by the tendency for discussion forums, and indeed whole sites, to be broken down strictly according to brand. I think this is a mistake, frankly. My first experiences on the internet were on the old Compuserve Photo Forum in the early '90s, where the categories weren't organized that way; although people ribbed each other about each other's camera choices, brand partisanship was much milder and more collegial and friendlier than it generally is on the internet today. Today it's gotten out of hand in some cases.

So the answer to your objections is probably that people coming from point-and-shoots shouldn't be looking at mid-level cameras. They should buy a closeout model or an entry level model or a used camera first, and get some experience with a couple of different cameras. Instead, they typically invest tens or hundreds of hours in "paper" (now, onscreen) shopping, and in forging alliances and defining prejudices—all without gathering firsthand data for themselves. Which I find rather silly, not to mention counterproductive.

The fact is, you really can't make an intelligent, informed choice of ~$1k mid-level DSLRs if you're new to DSLRs entirely, and that's probably not the best way to proceed anyway. What you need to do first is to try some different cameras—make "photo-friends" with whom you can swap cameras on a shooting jaunt for a couple of hours; look into rental options; certainly, patronize a local store that stocks some of the models you're interested in. (A hint: if you take a valuable camera you own into a camera store, you can leave it as "collateral" while you take the store's demo camera out the front door for a little quick test shooting. I used to carry my Leica M6 into stores and leave it with the salesman while a took his demo outside for half an hour's worth of shooting; they knew I'd be back. This allows you to examine some files or negs you shot yourself back at home, at leisure.)

But basically, I'm assuming here that mid-level cameras will be looked at mainly by people who have already owned SLRs, whether digital or film, and that they won't typically be the first step up for people who are just getting into photography and have previously used only camera phones or mass-market digicams. For those who are making such a big jump, a random choice among leading models probably is as good as anything—they just don't have a basis for intelligent, informed comparison. Your second-to-last paragraph above pretty much confirms as much.

Comments

[YS]

In this day and age, it takes guts to do a cop-out! Very nicely summarised. I also love the very succinct list of unique selling points of each system.

PS. What about #2? Or is this some smart way of meaning #2 will be out Thursday, and please look forward to #1 on Friday? I must be getting dense with each passing day...

[Hans Berkhout]

Great rant Mike--makes me think of the camera Larry Towell used in New York on 9/11.

Thanks for your insights, informative and a pleasure to read!

Hans Berkhout.

[Dennis Mook]

Mike, if I only had the same brand pen used by Shakespeare, then I would be able to write a better comment. Darn!

[pete mcconvill]

Mike - as a Sony shooter who just kind of fell into the brand I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment here. The minute differences between cameras of this class are such that I struggle to understand the inter-brand angst. The most destructive element of this is, I think, the creation of insane measurement techniques in a desperate attempt to find something, anything that will just our, and repudiate another's, brand choice.

[cb]

>A good shooter with a poorish camera will still shoot rings around an inexperienced goof with the latest and most fastidiously chosen and strenuously defended techno-wonder—and all of these cameras are truly excellent devices that will serve any thoughtful and hardworking photographer very, very well—very well indeed.<

Mike, to cop out the copped out copping you HAVE to give #1 to a fully manual film camera - operated by a good shooter.

[Mike]

These cameras are all good, but the Pentax K20D, which can now be had for less than $500 (body only) in some places, is a real steal.

[Robin P]

Starting from scratch (no present lens inventory or brand loyalty) the Pentax has to be the best deal as, apart from its lower cost, it makes working with older bargain lenses much easier than the others.

Then again, things are never as simple as they seem - I used to have Pentax *istD and although I tried all sorts of wonderful old K mount lenses they often disagreed with the sensor. The sensor coating relective qualities of my present Sony A100 make life much easier with old lenses, how does the Pentax K20 sensor fare in this respect?

Cheers, Robin

[Marc Rochkind]

Hmmmm... there's no #2? Must be a tie for #1. Nikon D700 is surely one of them. And, I suppose, one of the full-frame Canons...

But then would that be cop-out #2? ;-)

--Marc

[Andrea B.]

Bravo, Mike, bravo !!!
[Andrea B. stands and applauds vigorously.]

[Dan Gerth]

This is without a doubt the best advice on choosing a camera that I have read on any forum. Oh my God, rational thought on the internet!

[MikeF]

I don't think your "cop-out" is a cop-out at all. Any of these cameras would be a great choice and allow terrific photos to be made. My primary digital camera just happens to be one of them: the Canon 50D. Without my pre-existing set of Canon lenses I may well have chosen a different camera from your list. (There's a separate argument that many people choosing a Canon would do better with a 40D, but this isn't the time and place, and wasn't the choice I made.)

Brand loyalty isn't the issue - system lock-in is. The differences between the competing brands and camera systems would have to be much more substantial than they are for most people with existing gear to contemplate switching systems.

...Mike F

[Emmanuel Huybrechts]

If they are all similars why should I pay more than the 670$ K20D? (OK I'm biased I have a K20D, but a those prices it's a screaming bargain).

[misha]

Finally, someone said they're all good.

The arguing I've seen on some forums...

I challege anyone to look at a photograph, and state which camera it was made with. Remember on the LL, there was a post that started with "You've got to be kidding"? Some pros could not tell between a dSLR and the Canon G10: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

[Tom]

Bravo Mike. It is refreshing to see an online review that emphasizes the quality and approximate equivalence of the available mid-level DSLR bodies. There are differences between them that would make one a more appropriate choice for certain applications, but they are all excellent and the limiting factor in quality photographs, as always, remains the camera operator.

The Pentax does have a distinguishing price point however.

[Iñaki]

You forgot the D300 and E3 on this very group. Thus, there you have it:

The Nikon D90 (12.3 MP, $930)
The Nikon D300 [12.3 MP, $1600)
The Olympus E-30 (12.3 MP, $1100)
The Olympus E-3 (10.0 MP, $1300)
The Canon 50D (15.1 MP, $1120)
The Pentax K20D (14.6 MP, $670)
The Sony A700 (12.2 MP, $1000)

This is the broadest group ever, and what I wonder is how does Hoya manage to make ANY profit out of the K series... at those bargain basement prices of the whole series [the K200d is dangerously cheap].

[Dustin]

In my opinion, one of the pillars of camera shopping has fallen by the wayside as people peep pixels and arcane specs ad nauseam - ergonomics. I see less and less of this discussed. When I bought my first DSLR, I chose Canon's 20D over their Rebel cameras. The simple reason was the hand grip - the 20D felt so comfortable in my hand, that at times, I panicked when I thought I had set my camera down some place, when it was merely resting comfortably in one hand.

It if were me starting all over again, I'd try all the cameras on this list and pick out the one that feels best in my hand and the one that has the easiest to use functions, buttons and menus. Kudos to Mike for mentioning this!

[applesanity]

I'm still making my best shots on a beat-up Nikon FM2N with AIS manual focus lenses, using Tri-X and Rodinal 1+25. I always get a tinge of narcissistic pride when my friends with their newfangled plastic wonder DSLRs admit that I'm still running circles around them. I sometimes give the FM2N a break to whip out the Bronica SQ-Ai. Take that, technology!

[alex]

You're cheating.

[triplight]

I'd say all of these will be replaced within 12 months.

Also, the E-30 is the only camera of the bunch that lets you shoot in 1:1 aspect ratio (as does the E-620; and I think you can do so whether or not you're in live view.)

The K20D is quite a bargain right now. I shot it for a week in Tokyo with a 21mm Ltd and my only complaints were a hard shutter press (but it has a nice, soft shutter sound) and some minor banding at ISO 1600. Image stabilization was effective even at that short focal length. Easily the bang-for-buck choice, but but being fed up with having to shoot at 3:2, I'm going to try the E-30 or E-620 next time around.

[Jim]

Well said, especially the part about the choice being meaningless in a fairly short time period. These cameras are great, but won't have the staying power say of a Nikkormat, a classic Olympus range finder, or a Mamyia 645.

[Jim]

When I shoot 35mm SLR, I first grab a Yashica, 2nd - Minolta, 3rd - Pentax. I have two Pentax DSLR: reason, prime lens.

[Ira Crummey]

Dustin has a good point, ergonomics need more attention. All current dSLRs produce great images, speed and ISO performance being the major separators, but the feel of a camera can really be the dealbreaker. All of this group feel good in your hands so now it comes down to control placement. I use a Pentax K10D so I am very familiar with the feel of the K20D since there are no major changes in shape or user interface.

No cop-out here, all are great and only details that may be more important to certain photographers actually separate them.

I look forward to the final entries.

[Robert Roaldi]

Amen.

The way it is phrased in most forums is that 4/3s is not as good at very high ISOs. It would be more accurate to state that the current crop of sensors in the 4/3s bodies are not as good as others at very high ISOs. I doubt that a large part of the perceived deficiency is due to size alone, given that they really are similar in size. A 4/3s manufacturer could potentially build a sensor that was superior to the others, no one has a monopoly on technology, but they don't seem to have done that yet.

[Steve Greenwood]

Mike:

A truly excellent cop-out and I agree wholeheartedly. I would point out that the Pentax K20 is the only camera here that supports the non-proprietary DNG raw format, something that I feel needs more support from photographers who are less interested in being in one camp or another than actually taking pictures.

Meanwhile, I'm off to Barcelona with my trusty Ricoh GX-100. An odd choice, I know.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Excellent recommendation!

"Levels" of product, and names for them, are interesting. You've used "entry-level", which has a fairly obvious meaning that's compatible with how you used it. Now we have "mid-level", which clearly means between other levels; presumably between "entry-level" and a grouping to be named later.

Also, "mid" seems like a less precise concept than "entry", so this band may have vaguer boundaries -- perhaps as indicated by Inaki's suggestion that the D300 and the E3 really belong in this group. Given how those prices stand out, I'm not sure they do, and I doubt you "forgot" them.

Presumably there's a "top" or "professional" level (not necessarily as a recommendation; maybe that's the big controversy you're planning, simply not recommending any of the top-level cameras?) to cover the Nikon D3[x] and Canon 1D* (that's a wildcard "star", not a confusion with Pentax naming :-)).

So I guess the big question is where you'll put the D300, D700, and 5D. Also it's not totally clear the D300 belongs on that list. Apparently not in "mid"; so either in "pro", or in another intermediate level, perhaps "prosumer" (hate the term; it labels a useful concept, though, gear of pro quality for some purposes that's cheap enough for some mere mortals to own). The fact that two of them are full-frame probably confuses the issue, introducing a cost and feature point that (may) not be really relevant to categorizing the camera.

Hope you're having as much fun as I am!

[Martin Doonan]

I had a conversation in a camera store with a Nikon shooter (I use Canon) about the relative merits. Not once was picture quality mentioned - preference was all to do with functions and ergonomics. We agreed that both cameras (earlier models in this bracket) were excellent picture making machine, neither better nor worse. More photographers should care to have such an attitude.

[improbable]

"ergonomics need more attention.... All of this group feel good in your hands so now it comes down to control placement."

And control logic, and general consistency and thoughtfulness.

Cameras used to be metal hand tools, for which ergonomics meant how they fit your hand. But now they're small computers, and software really counts. With the same buttons and knobs you could design... well windows 3.1 and mac os 10.5!

Some pet loves/hates:

- My old nikon has hold the button and spin the wheel adjustments for iso, white balance... and after not touching it for 3 years, my fingers can still make these adjustments blind.

- Whereas I find canon's pushing a button and then turning awful. If you get distracted, you have to look to see if it's reset yet, or not yet.

- My pentax idiotically uses "right" on the dial to always mean "bigger numbers": towards 1/2000, +2ev, f/22, less/more/less light.

- I'm still waiting for an "M*" mode in which 2 dials are exposure and aperture, rather than shutter and aperture. On film bodies I was pretty quick at counter-rotating the two in sync, but on digital I can't do this, sometime they lose a click, so you have to think... This would make me very happy.

[J. Salisbury]

Your list focuses primarily on new cameras, but in my opinion a used Canon 1d Mark II is a better choice than any of these cameras and can be had for about the same price. Yes, you only have 8mp and can't use the APS-C lenses but it's a better (and heavier) camera in just about all other respects that matter for taking good pictures.

[erlik]

I wonder whether this is the last series of advanced/semi-pro cameras without video. No, somehow I don't think that D90 is really in this group, however good it may be.

And triplight, you can't shoot 1:1 in viewfinder, just in Live View. And in JPEG only or for conversion in Olympus software. Otherwise it's a crop like any other.

[yunfat]

A very nice post indeed Mike, both pragmatic and lucid.

The only thing I might add is: What lenses do your friends have?

If your best mate from down the road is an industrial tycoon ( or insert rich profession here) and happens to own a closet full of summicrons and noktons, and loves to loan them to friends, get a freakin M8.

[Gordon Lewis]

I'm really struck by the price of the Pentax K20D. I could buy a K20D with a really sweet lens such as the 21mm f/3.2 and still pay only slightly more than the cost of the other bodies alone. And as quiet as it's kept, a certain blogger whose name will not be mentioned has been using a K20D for several months now. Whether that's a plus or a minus for the Pentax I will leave for his readers to decide.

[Bob McCarthy]

hehe,

So what I'm trying to figure out is it pixels or IS0 for number 1

D700 & 5D mkII which is # 1 and which is #2.

My guess D700 wins, Mikes style is not huge amount of pixels vs great high ISO sensor with excellent B&W capability

bob

[Cameron]

So given that these are "mid-level" cameras, why do they all look like they are designed for pros who need to hold a camera for 8-12 hours every day? I'm getting to detest that "ergonomic" bulbous "pro camera body" look. We're well into the digital revolution, and yet, after all these years, we're still waiting for a digital Pentax MX.

[adam]

I've worked with all types of cameras in my career as a large sign printer. I now do photoshopping for a publishing company, so I've seen the files coming off of digital cameras from the beginning. In the early days (6+ years ago) I would tell anyone to get a Canon, it's files were superior to all its' competition, when it came to enlarging an image for print. I'm a Canon shooter, and have been since I started with film. So I admit I'm biased. Today, however, I feel all the brands (not sure about Pentax just yet) are equally impressive, but they all still record images differently. However, RAW has become so versatile that doesn't even matter. I'm so glad to see it finally boil down to preference, this gives us new thinking in competition (HD video), and also the megapixel war seems less important (finally). No one will ever win the Nikon/Canon war...it's a bloody battle that will be waged for eternity. I'm glad some reviewer finally admits there is no difference.

[Ken Tanaka]

"So, the takeaway from today's recommendation: shopping—exhaustive, hysterical, argumentative, absorbing, never-ending, absurdly excessive shopping—has come to dominate many online discussions of photography. This is a distraction. A good shooter with a poorish camera will still shoot rings around an inexperienced goof with the latest, most fastidiously chosen, and most strenuously defended techno-wonder—and all of these cameras are truly excellent devices that will serve any thoughtful and hardworking photographer very, very well—very well indeed. Pick one and be done."

Amen. Bronze that, Mike.

I'd go even further to say that the camera -any camera- has far less impact than the photographer on a photograph.

Buy the camera you can easily afford and that you know you'll find convenient to use often. You'll be rewarded for making a modest choice.

[Bryce Lee in Burlington, Ontario Canada]

Cop? As in police service person?
The bastardization of the language?

However assuming Cop in proper terms is
Constable, as in painter of landscapes,
then maybe I shall agree.

Lovely range of models though; you should mention your source of pricing.

Here in Canada, quoted prices are way more than what you've listed. And nobody here to my knowledge sells for less than list price.

Then there is the damnable sales taxes, 13 percent here.

[James Liu]

Mike,

You know, being replaced by a newer-better model isn't such a bad thing. After all, how much better can the new camera possibly be? Other than incremental improvements in image quality and video (hey, some people may want this), I can think of one feature worth having: focus calibration in camera. The Pentax, the Olympus & the Canon in this range have it, the Nikon & Sony don't. Both Nikon & Sony have it in higher range cameras, and I wouldn't be surprised if their successor midrange camera's will.

Minor quibbles aside, perceived obsolescence is a great boon for the value shopper. Google makes a business out of building a supercomputer out of last year's latest and greatest PC parts. I have a friend who calmly pulled the trigger on a 5D right when the Mark II came out - for not too far off the top end of these prices.

[Mark Brown]

Mike, you are brilliant!

Though could I mention the Canon 40D. It's practically the same camera as the 50D but £200 less in the UK. I admit I am being selfish by pushing the 40D since I own one and couldn't be happier.

I chose a mid-level DSLR for my first digital camera for exactly the reasons you gave. It 'had' to be Canon and I can only afford one so I figured I may as well pay a bit extra to get something more robust and versatile. I doubt I'll ever need 6.5fps but I'll be damned if I go without the rear contol dial and 3200 ISO.

[Eolake Stobblehouse]

Your "cop-out": well said.

That's just what I say to anybody asking my advice, even people I may buy pictures from later: any entry- or mid-level DSLR will do you fine.

Also, like you yourself pointed out brilliantly: the closer two things are, the harder the choice will seem. (And the more arguments you often get.) Though it should not be so.

[GKFroehlich]

Mike,
I agree completely with you and the others that pictures are the point, and that a competent photographer can produce good work with any of these cameras. I also agree with those that have mentioned ergonomics as an important factor. One of the brands listed has all the buttons and dials just where I would have put them if the choice had been mine, and all of them turn in the direction that seems most logical to me, so that is the brand I've settled upon. Some of the others have things in places that seem odd or uncomfortable to me, or that operate in a non-intuitive way. Could I learn to live with that? Of course I could, but why, when I have an alternative that's better suited to me and my hands! (And at least one of those cameras has knobs and dials placed for the hands of another species, or so it seems).

I am not in violent agreement about IS (or VR, or OIS, or...) however. You conclude, regarding in-body IS, that "it does not need to be purchased repeatedly (and expensively) in each and every lens you buy that has it." Certainly that's true. You also state that "...neither the Canon nor the Nikon have body-integral image stabilization, largely because both companies make more money by putting that feature into their lenses." That might be a logical conclusion. It might even be true. But do you have any actual evidence for that statement? At any rate, slight motion due to hand-holding the camera results in slight spatial translations of the image. This is more pronounced the longer the focal length (after all, telephotos do magnify). It is also more pronounced at the image plane than elsewhere in the optical path. For longer focal-length lenses especially, the needed corrections can be small near the nodal point (inside the lens), but will be relatively much larger at the image plane. For this reason alone, it seems likely that applying the correction in the lens, rather than at the image sensor, should be a more tractable solution to the IS problem. Further, by applying the correction in the lens, the solution can be tailored to the specifics of said lens (focal length, focal ratio), which seems like a more difficult thing to do in the image plane. Do you suppose it's just possible that this is why Canon and Nikon put this feature into their lenses rather than their camera bodies? It will be interesting to see what Imaging-Resource.com comes up with, assuming they test a suitable variety of focal lengths.

Finally (I couldn't stop myself), triplight says of the K20D and 21mm Ltd that "Image stabilization was effective even at that short focal length." Jeez, I'd hope so! There's scarcely a need for IS at that short focal length. Tell me it was effective with the DA Star 300mm F4, and I'd be impressed!

Keep doing what you're doing, Mike, and thanks!

[Ignacio Soler]

I don't think the high ISO performance of current 4/3s cameras has much to do with sensor size. It has to do with Panasonic's sensor technology being a step behind the others in this department. If it were Canon or Nikon making the 4/3s sensor, we wouldn't see any difference.

[Daniel]

Over the pond (UK), typical street prices are (from a large respected internet retailer):

The Nikon D90 (12.3 MP, £619)
The Olympus E-30 (12.3 MP, £849)
The Canon 50D (15.1 MP, £825)
The Pentax K20D (14.6 MP, £580)
The Sony A700 (12.2 MP, £580)

You might also consider the 40D (£580), 500D (£869), E3 (£994) and D300 (£1145).

[éric]

As Dustin says, it's how the camera feels in your hand, how you can "see" with the camera, and how you can work the controls that matters more in the end. I bought at Minolta D5 because, of the cameras I could afford at that time, it "felt" the best. I had no lens investment to protect [*]. And I have had no regrets.

But any of the other equivalent cameras that were available at the time would have done me just fine.

Mike, excellent cop out all around. And I'm really enjoying your top 10 list! Can't wait for the remainder.

[*] all my old lenses were Canon FD, almost completely orphaned until I bought the Panasonic G1 a few months ago... but you've already covered that camera!

[Vince]

" ... I have to mention, too, that no matter how carefully you choose, your choice will change meanings dismayingly shortly, because all of these cameras will be old news all too soon... "

Very true - to the point that maybe the choice of such camera should include evaluating (as per the brand and latest model date release) how long the camera will remain "hot". Even more than features, this might prove to be the deciding factor since no one wants to buy a new camera that will be obsolete or replaced in 3 months.

It's quite frustrating for any consumer to invest a relatively large sum of money into what they believe to be the best camera in their price range, take it home lovingly and begin flirting with it - slowly undressing it and learning its many moods - and then soon thereafter realize the manufacturer has already released a new model and is marketing it aggressively, coming short of sending owners of past models a personal email saying that their camera has become obsolete and owning it now reeks of shameful weakness...

[Matthew Miller]

On weight:

Pentax K20D with DA 40mm: 890g
Nikon D90 with AF-S 35mm: 910g
Olympus E30 with ZD 25mm: 825g

[Henry Fung]

Mike, this the the best recommendation ever on cameras. Even the worst of these crop of 12Mp DSLRs is plenty to make good print around 14" x 20". Camera brands no longer make that much of a difference; it all depends on the photographer's vision and skill set. I hope most people can see what you are getting at.

[EmmJay]

Due to family med problems (bills from hell) I sold off most of my good gear last year including a newly acquired 5D and 24-105. An unexpected financial recovery has me with a D90 in hand with a plastic 18-105. I'm quite thrilled with the D90's image quality and really don't feel I'm missing much except a bit of status.:) Despite other cameras being all so close do yourself a favor. Go to Best Buy and fondle all the cameras and tell me honestly that Nikon doesn't make the best plastic cameras and lenses around. Not talkin' bout the pro stuff just the consumer grade cameras. Add to it Nikon superb flash metering and there is little question the Nikon deserves to be at the top of the list.

[Lsmbert]

Hmm... only the Canon has a body cap on. Is it a subtle way to reinforce the Canon brand by showing the Canon logo twice? Or is it trying to suggest that the Canon needs to be ashamed of its sensor, while the other brands' sensors look sexy "naked"?

[Amin]

I think this was great advice, well written, and needed to be said. Still, I think you're cheating and, in addition to all you said here, should specify the one amongst these that would specifically suit you the best and explain why.

[mcananeya]

(1) Ergonomics are key. I fully agree with the others who have emphasized this point. Anyone choosing among these cameras should decide based on that alone. Go to a store, try them ALL. I am positive that one will just feel more natural to you than the rest.

(2) Mike: You didn't mention viewfinders! I am shocked, absolutely shocked! This is certainly a pertinent difference. If I remember correctly, the Nikon D90 and Pentax K20D have the best viewfinders of the bunch, but I'm open to correction.

(3) As a Nikon shooter who is very, very happy with his D300 and D60, I tell anyone who asks me to buy the Pentax K20D.

- Great viewfinder for a cropped-frame camera
- Weather-sealed
- Body integral stabilization
- Great ergonomics (admittedly subjective)
- Highly customizable
- Great selection of new, unique, innovative, loveable and envy-inducing primes
- HUGE selection of available lenses. While "Canon and Nikon are the market leaders, with the broadest ranges of accessories, the largest selection of specialty lenses including super-telephotos", there are thousands upon thousands of lenses that are natively compatible with, or can be adapted for use on, the K20D, including all M42 and K-mount lenses.
- IT ONLY COSTS $670!!!!

Incidentally, the Pentax K200D, which is practically a K10D in a smaller, lighter package, it another screaming deal.

Best,
Adam