D30 of y2k. Was cheaper than the Nikon D1 of the time, brought a slew of us into shooting digital. Was a bit a time gap to the uber big pixel count of the D60. Doesn't really feel like a dozen years ago. I'd agree 20d was a nice bang for the buck, 1d mark 2 was a real workhorse for me too.
dhphoto wrote:
If value for money is the real criteria and not just 40D love it's the 550D/T2i by a mile.
The same sensor as the 600D, 650D, 60D and 7D in a camera with an excellent LCD, video and all the modern features all for a tiny amount of money now.
+1 fully agree.The T2i is an amazing value for under $300.
1D for two and a half and it will sync at higher shutter speeds. Great build and af.
Love it for outdoor work, but smaller file size and tiny LCD are a bit limiting.
In my mind, the best ever value will be the Canon EOS 7D. Why? It does everything well. Fast movers, slow movers, non-movers. It does it better than any 1.6x camera. Solid AF system, 1080p hdslr, flash commander, ergonomics, 1-series weather seal, great IQ (just look at Imagemaster and that Robdickinson's landscape images) etc...
Firmware 2.0 just add extends the value of the 7d. Smarter auto ISO and 26 raw burst. That's 1d4 territory.
In fact it does so well that it is the camera that every other camera seems to be compared upon. Just look at the multitude of 7d vs. <5d2, 1dIII, 1dIV, 50d, GT-R, Pippa's arse...> whatever threads. This alone goes not only to show how versatile this camera is but also how a great value it is. When it depreciates down to $500, you will have one hell of a camera in the 7d.
How about the original Digital Rebel / 300D? A lot of people I know today started with either that or the Nikon (D70? I think) and it was the first to get below the mythical $1000. price point. I see that as being the camera that brought digital SLRs to the masses. It was the first real 'value' camera or the one that started it all.
I don't know many people who started with a D30/D60/10D but I do know a lot who started with the digital rebel.
Access wrote:
How about the original Digital Rebel / 300D? A lot of people I know today started with either that or the Nikon (D70? I think) and it was the first to get below the mythical $1000. price point. I see that as being the camera that brought digital SLRs to the masses. It was the first real 'value' camera or the one that started it all.
I don't know many people who started with a D30/D60/10D but I do know a lot who started with the digital rebel.
Abiout the only nice thing I could say about the 300D, was the IQ was nice, otherwise a dog of a camera in every way. This is the textbook definition of crippling.
M Lucca wrote:
In my mind, the best ever value will be the Canon EOS 7D. Why? It does everything well. Fast movers, slow movers, non-movers. It does it better than any 1.6x camera. Solid AF system, 1080p hdslr, flash commander, ergonomics, 1-series weather seal, great IQ (just look at Imagemaster and that Robdickinson's landscape images) etc...
Firmware 2.0 just add extends the value of the 7d. Smarter auto ISO and 26 raw burst. That's 1d4 territory.
In fact it does so well that it is the camera that every other camera seems to be compared upon. Just look at the multitude of 7d vs. <5d2, 1dIII, 1dIV, 50d, GT-R, Pippa's arse...> whatever threads. This alone goes not only to show how versatile this camera is but also how a great value it is. When it depreciates down to $500, you will have one hell of a camera in the 7d.
...Show more →
I agree. It's rather unusual for Canon to cram in so many genuinely useful features in a DSLR, it seemed almost like a panic move by Canon to counter Nikon's increasingly popular cameras. In contrast, look at Canon's latest FF camera with its single axis level, no pop up flash despite being marketed as "entry level" FF, no 100% VF, and could've-been-better AF.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Abiout the only nice thing I could say about the 300D, was the IQ was nice, otherwise a dog of a camera in every way. This is the textbook definition of crippling.
It was, but it didn't really matter. As a DSLR it was still leaps ahead of the prosumer stuff that was available in the under $1000. range. By the time the 20D had come out, there was hacked firmware available to fix all the stuff they had broken (AI Servo autofocus, FEC adjustment, metering modes, etc.)
Can't argue with votes for the 40D & 7D. On the other hand, a while back I picked up a second hand 30D for a little over £100 GBP, and it's stunningly good for the price.
If I didn't already have a 7D, I'd be looking at the 1DIII which is also excellent value right now. I just saw one for sale reconditioned & guaranteed for 6 months by a respected Canon workshop for £695. That's very little for such a big chunk of camera.
n0b0 wrote:
How about the 450D/XSI? It was considered by many here to have the best APS-C sensor due to the ideal megapixel count for the sensor size.
Yes, I still have one, they are excellent, I think the 550D shades it because of the sensor, LCD and video, but the 450D is still great. If Canon had put that sensor in the 40D many would have thought it about perfect.
I assumed this thread meant best value new, if you include the secondhand market that is a different matter.
dhphoto wrote:
Yes, I still have one, they are excellent, I think the 550D shades it because of the sensor, LCD and video, but the 450D is still great. If Canon had put that sensor in the 40D many would have thought it about perfect.
I assumed this thread meant best value new, if you include the secondhand market that is a different matter.
Value for money as of today as well........new or s/h purchases.
I borrowed a 550D for part of a studio shoot and after 10 - 15 minutes I went back (with some relief) to my 40D.
Not only was the 40D much nicer to handle.......I thought the 40D files had a better quality to them when looking at the results the following day...all processed in LR3.
I have revisited the files with LR4 and had another go at some of them.....it didn't change my opinion.
I recently bought a 5D so I have a FF DSLR to use alongside 35mm film. I am still 'learning' about the 5D so I might get better IQ in the future......but at the moment I am only putting the 5D files on a par with the 40D......maybe a slight edge in some instances.
anthonygh wrote:
Value for money as of today as well........new or s/h purchases.
I borrowed a 550D for part of a studio shoot and after 10 - 15 minutes I went back (with some relief) to my 40D.
Not only was the 40D much nicer to handle.......I thought the 40D files had a better quality to them when looking at the results the following day...all processed in LR3.
I have revisited the files with LR4 and had another go at some of them.....it didn't change my opinion.
I recently bought a 5D so I have a FF DSLR to use alongside 35mm film. I am still 'learning' about the 5D so I might get better IQ in the future......but at the moment I am only putting the 5D files on a par with the 40D......maybe a slight edge in some instances. ...Show more →
Hi Anthony,
Here's an article that might shed some insight into your 40D vs 5Dc IQ observations...don't discount what you're seeing. The conclusion and subsequent updates are interesting...
I've not the 5Dc in my kit but have compared many files from both bodies (a good friend has one) and I found only a slight advantage going to FF...not having Liveview is why I've no 5Dc
You have two great bodies in the 40D and 5Dc, I was going to pickup a 5D2 for my kit until the 6D was announced
