I friend of mine who is a professional digital photographer strongly recommended the Canon Rebel XTI when I asked him almost the same question a couple weeks ago. In his words, it will do 85% of the things that an $8000 digital camera will do.

I second the Digi Rebel. But as any photog will tell you, It's the lens that matters more. You'll want to find a good all around lens that is more towards the wide angle end of the spectrum for architecture shots. Another thing that will help is a lens hood.

I've been looking into this. Being able to get good wide angle is important - pretty much, unless you're going really high end, the canon 10-22 lens is a really, really good value. so, I'd say that + 40d, or rebel if you can't swing that. Nikon's got a better camera in the D300, but without a good wide lens to go with it, it's kinda pointless.

i'm a canon person- i have a 10d right now. i'd go for canon or else nikon; you'll fine more and cheaper lenses for them than you would any other system.

a good lens is crucial, but the "lens is more important" argument rings less true when you're talking digital cameras, instead of film-based ones. what i'm saying is, you can't skimp on lenses, but you can't put a good a good lens on a junky digital body and pull decent images (like you could do with film).

D40x, E-510 or 400D rebel

look on dpreview.com

Canon and Olympus are crap and will likely last you only 3 years, spend wisely grasshopper and buy a Nikon N5 would be my recommendation.

I find comprehending the fast-paced digital camera market to be unusually complex -- you may find these websites helpful in sorting through the options:

Photo.net - Digital Camera Resources

Shutterbug Magazine Equipment Reviews

As mentioned above by MacRoen, this link also is very useful - Digital Photography Review

I think architechnophilia meant to recommend a Nikon F5. That is a very nice pro-level film camera (I have shot with it) and it is made like a tank and is heavy as a brick (not a travel camera for sure).

I second the thought that your lens choices are more important than the camera body –especially in the rapidly advancing digital camera world. Exterior architectural shots are pretty straight forward and a standard zoom (18-70 for digital 28-105 for film) will cover most things. I would also look into picking up a fast 50mm lens (an f/1.8) that will allow you to compress your depth of field (what is in clear focus) for detail shots. Nikon has a great 50 f/1.8 you can get new for around $100.

Interior architectural shots are much more difficult. Pros use very expensive perspective correction lenses to get the look. I have a 10-20 superwide and the distortion on the 10mm side when shooting inside is dramatic – not always a good thing for most people (although I love it). Photoshop and Nikon Capture can correct the distortion in post-process. Lighting is also tricky but can be done with a few relatively inexpensive speedlights and a tripod.
Personally, I would stick to either Nikon or Cannon and start building a library of lenses. I like Nikon because they fit my hand better that Cannon.

If you want more detailed recommendations on Nikon cameras just let me know.

architectophile or whatever...

i have to call you out on one of the least informative posts ever:

"Canon and Olympus are crap and will likely last you only 3 years, spend wisely grasshopper and buy a Nikon N5 would be my recommendation."

why even bother?




threshold's totally right about those short lenses. as a general rule, you'll get the least distortion from a prime (not zoom) lens at any particular focal length. those 50mm 1.8s are great- i have the canon equivalent, but you have to remember that if you're using a dslr that doesn't have a full-frame sensor (you'll have to spend a lot of money for one that does) the 50mm lens will look more like a 70-80mm on a film camera. this problem occurs with any lens, so that you end up needing a 10mm lens to do interiors = immediately perceptible distortion. i don't know what the answer is here- there are some good photoshop plugins that correct for this, etc.

in my old job, i sometimes had to escort/assist architectural photographers around new projects. most of the time they were using 30-50mm lenses on full-frame bodies. they did get really creative with framing, camera placement, etc. (opening windows and shooting from outside to maximize width of field, placing furniture in ways that made no sense in reality, but looked right in the shot) it seemed to me that they were usually more challenged by lighting than anything else..

if you are going to spend the money, buy a canon or nikon.

personally, i'm a canon guy. i would advise you to buy canon.

the next nikon guy would advise you to buy nikon.

we would both debate forever.

not that you would need it, but the Nikon D300 has a live video output so that you could hook a TV monitor (or your laptop) up to the camera and compose your shot on a larger monitor before you shoot.

All my friends who are stop-motion animators have just bought the D300 for that reason. Also, it is a Nikon...which last

thank you all for the vibrant feedback. while that canon 10-22mm looks *amazing* i'm keeping my budget under $1000 and the super-wides might have to wait for a more lucrative project. and, mostly out of weird pride and an unshakeable desire for uniqueness, i'm staying away from the highest selling entry level digital slr out there (canon rebel). i'm going with the olympus, mostly 'cause they seem to do a good job coming out with innovative products quite regularly and the 14mm kit lens seems okay enough to start. i'll keep y'all posted on the results!

superinteresting! - Take it for a test-drive first! Before I bought my last DSLR I was able to use a friend's for several weeks and really make sure it was the right one for me. At the very least spend an hour shooting with one at the camera store. Check the button location, the way the grip feels, what is on the viewfinder display and how bright the viewfinder is.

olympus????

there are only 2 camera companies - nikon + cannon...with nikon being the only real camera company

yeah.... if you want to be unique in your choice of digital camera, why not mate a scanner with an old large format camera.

if you want get a good camera that will last, go with a canon or nikon. remember, you're not buying a camera so much as you are buying a lens mounting system. one of my friends in studio was just lamenting his olympus the other day... i was showing him a new lens; he looke at it for a minute and then walked away mumbling something about not being able to get it for his olympus. you're going to pay a 20-100 dollar premium every time you get a new lens for this thing.

My outfit, all for under 1000 and I have been very impressed with the results...see samples here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgny/

Body: Nikon D50 (now the D40x) $500

Lens: Nikkor 50mm 1.4D Lens $300

Lens2: 18-70mm that ships with the camera. Nothing spectaular about it, but useful.


Dream Lens: Nikkor 14-24mm Super Wide. They just released this for around $1,400. however for a lens like this I should really upgrade to the D200 or D300.

i have a d80 with the kit lens (which people say is shit)
it's my first dslr and i'm happy with it, apart from the fact it's not the all round camera as it's kinda too bulky too always carry round.
i'm buying into kenrockwell.com hyping the nikon 18-200 VR lens as the perfect allrounder, just because i'm sick and tired of getting blur unless i'm on a tripod.
but it's still too costly for me (EU being a lot more expensive than the US)
BUT: i do find it hard to do the model shots i'm after, so guess i want a macro lens of some sort too...
at the time it was a toss-up between the d80 and the 400d. i went to the shop and the d80 was just that little bit bigger and felt good in my hand (and took a picture when i pressed the button - the canon didn't...).
the option for the 400d would've been to get the optional battery cartridge, but then in terms of cost i'd be right up in d80 land anyway.
i recently had a second look at the 400d and i'm glad i went for the d80 as the canon felt very plasticy.
basically, i think mr. rockwell puts it pretty well (and i may not like his photographic style, but...): it's not about the body. there will something better, greater, more megapix in 6 months. invest in your lenses, they're for the long-term (which has already been repeated here).

go to a shop and try them all out and then spend three days on the web combing for the best deal!!!

on another note. for HD video, i just fell in love with this baby: www.red.com
apparently these guys are working on a "mini pocket version"...

I like colcol's approach -- I just purchased a Nikon CoolScan 5000 so I can scan 35mm film images I make with a great set of classic Leica cameras and Leica lenses handed down to me by my Dad once he no longer had much use for them.

I will say, older film cameras and a variety of high quality lenses weigh a lot and are a bitch to carry around -- but, the image quality is great.

i meant something like this. super unique.

We had a scanback for large format Cameras at work (digital print / pre-press studio). It was pretty cool. Resolution was AMAZING. But exposure times were rediculous and you'd get ghosting with things like fast moving clouds.

I'd buy the Rebel or the D50 (I already have Cannon EF lenses so I'd probably go with the Cannon since my Nikon stuff all got stolen).

Been happy with my Pentax dSLR -- K10D. Great value, image stabilization, and a good 10-24 lens isn't too much money, and a 21mm is tiny, terrific and even less.

You can't go terribly wrong with any of the crop of current 10 mb cameras. It's probably best to look into the lens(es) you might want first, and then work backwards from there.