Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: What are good value semi-pro dslr without live view and without movie mode?  (Read 4821 times)

dlcWild

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2

Hi guys,
I'm a semi-pro, not a beginner. My current equipment is basic, - an old but trustworthy Canon EOS20D and some "L" series lenses. Although it has served, and still serves, me well, my EOS20D has become "obsolete" by today's standards. I want to replace it with a semi-pro camera but do not want one with live view or movie/video mode. My philosophy is that with today's trends in dslr's (as well as a host of other consumer products), you end up paying for things you don't really want. To my way of thinking, a straight forward dslr costing as an example $1,000, should be a better photographic tool than a $1000 dslr with live view, movie mode, alarm clock and coffee maker! If I could find a "modern" version of the EOS20D, with better weather seals, slightly faster buffering and around 15Meg resolution I would be happy, - but this seems to be an almost impossible task (at least here in South Africa where I live). At the risk of starting a major 'x' vs 'y' vs 'z' debate, can anyone give me some suggestions as to a replacement? Derek.
Logged

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1797
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com

If you want to stay in the Canon system, I'm not sure you can find what you want in a new camera. The 40D is available for a reasonable price, and it does not shoot video, but it has live view. Before I purchased that camera, I thought I would never use or want live view, but I've found it extremely useful in some situations. The 1D Mark II and 1Ds Mark II have neither live view nor video, but they are of the same time period as your 20D -- i.e., elderly by digital standards.

If I wanted a new Canon DSLR right now, I would buy a 7D, or maybe a 60D. They have both video and live view, but you don't have to use either feature.

Good luck.
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. https://www.instagram.com/wakeforestphoto/

KirbyKrieger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
    • Kirby Krieger Pictures

Hi guys,
... To my way of thinking, a straight forward dslr costing as an example $1,000, should be a better photographic tool than a $1000 dslr with live view, movie mode, alarm clock and coffee maker!

If you were paying someone to make you one, that might be truish.  But you're not.  You're selecting the best tool for your needs at a given price.  That it comes with additional features has no bearing on its value to you if those features have no value to you and don't encumber your use of the features that do.  Devaluing a camera (or any purchase) because it has features you won't use is a sub-optimal way to evaluate prior to purchase.

My 3ยข.   :)  Use it or lose it.

dlcWild

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2

Kirby and K. Bennet,
Thanks for your quick responses. Appreciate the suggestions (K. Bennet) and the perspective (Kirby).
Logged

alainbriot

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 796
  • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
    • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com

The Canon 60D is a great value at around $950. It has both live view and movie mode, but you don't have to use them, though you might find them of interest once you start playing with them.
Logged
Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1668
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com

All the recent DSLR's have live-view, the last camera of note I can recall not having live-view was the Sony full-frame (and I thought that was a huge mistake on Sony's part). And going forward I think it's highly likely that all DSLR's will have video. These features don't really add to the cost or complexity of DSLR's, it's really just firmware programming.

Don't knock live-view until you've tried it. If you ever shoot from a tripod, live-view is the most accurate way to focus.

Logged
Jeff Kohn
[url=http://ww

stpf8

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
    • Stephen Penland Photography

I never thought I'd use live view (I've managed for many years without it).  But once I saw what a difference it made in focusing a telephoto lens on a tripod, I wouldn't want to buy a new camera without live view.
Logged
Stephen Penland
www.stephenpenland.com

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au

You could probably get a 5D MII for very close to what you paid for your 20D (if you were an early purchaser). After getting one I found big improvements in writing speeds, viewfinder size and brightness, LCD quality and size, image sizes and particularly high ISO. If you are like me you won't look back!

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

frugal

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
    • http://www.andrewdaceyphotography.com/

You're not paying extra for these features. Compare the prices of what the 20d's replacements sold for, willing to bet that in each case you got more features at the same price point or cheaper.

You could maybe make a case that a camera without those features but otherwise similarly speced should be cheaper then but that engineering effort has already happened and I doubt that the camera manufacturers divide up their profits in such a way where the engineering team responsible for live view or video only gets paid from the profits of cameras with those features. In other words, if you buy a camera without these features then you're paying for them and not even getting them, if such a camera even existed.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up