Everyone here seems to be very knowledgable about a great many
things. I thought I would ask fellow forumites about their thoughts
on a new camera.I am looking to move up from a sony point and shoot
3.1 megapixel. I've got it narrowed down to 4 models all at 10.1
mega pixels.
1)Canon Rebel XTi
2)Canon EOS40D
3)Nikon D40x
4)Nikon D80
They are all very similar. I am planning to get an 18-55mm
auto focus lens to start off with which ever model I choose.
Your thoughts and opinions would be of great value to me.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Ed
Shopping for a Digital SLR, Opinons plz
-
grasshopper
- Member
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:04 am
- Location: Tombstone,AZ
Canon 40D and the Nikon D80 are very good choices.
You could select a better lens, though. The kit lens 18-55mm is not very good. If you are considering the new Canon one, the model II, then it is much better.
There are much better choices in lenses than the 18-55 in both Nikon and Canon.
You might buy just the body and then get a Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50 and save money and get a better lens.
You could select a better lens, though. The kit lens 18-55mm is not very good. If you are considering the new Canon one, the model II, then it is much better.
There are much better choices in lenses than the 18-55 in both Nikon and Canon.
You might buy just the body and then get a Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50 and save money and get a better lens.
-
malice4you
- Member
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:14 am
- Location: NJ
As long as you stick with Canon or Nikon, you really can't go wrong. Other companies just are not as proven, especially newcomers to the dSLR field like sony and samsung...
Honestly, canon and nikon dSLR's that are out today are all nice cameras. Don't think about megapixels, the number is unimportant at this point.
Ask yourself what you will be shooting....will it be general photography...landscapes...portraits...sports...kids....low light stuff...wildlife? Will you use flash a lot? Will you be buying a couple lenses, or sticking with just the kit lens?
I personally shoot a Canon 1D mark IIN and a 20D, but I've owned a 1D, 10D, and 300D as well. I'm somewhat biased for canon, but Nikons certainly are not bad cameras by any means.
Once you buy a company's camera, you're generally hooked into buying camera gear for that company, since switching would cost a bit more. There are things Canon excells at, there are things Nikon excells at. When you know what kinds of shooting ou'd like to do, you can then research the strengths of the system, including costs. Nikon is known for wide angle lenses, good low light autofocus, and excellent flash system (though this is talking about add-on flashes, not built-in ones really). Canon is known for their telephoto lenses, their excellent high-ISO performance, and *generally* lower lens costs.
I know none of this is answering the question....but once you decide what you'd like to do most, you can always post back here and get more help.
check out http://www.fredmiranda.com - they have a massive forum over there about photography....plenty to read there that will help you....
is a photo of my toys, excluding a fisheye and 300-800mm which I didn't yet have when I took the photo. I shoot for newspapers, including shooting sports, as well as wildlife for fun, so Ihave concentrated on low light gear, especially low light supertelephotos.
Honestly, canon and nikon dSLR's that are out today are all nice cameras. Don't think about megapixels, the number is unimportant at this point.
Ask yourself what you will be shooting....will it be general photography...landscapes...portraits...sports...kids....low light stuff...wildlife? Will you use flash a lot? Will you be buying a couple lenses, or sticking with just the kit lens?
I personally shoot a Canon 1D mark IIN and a 20D, but I've owned a 1D, 10D, and 300D as well. I'm somewhat biased for canon, but Nikons certainly are not bad cameras by any means.
Once you buy a company's camera, you're generally hooked into buying camera gear for that company, since switching would cost a bit more. There are things Canon excells at, there are things Nikon excells at. When you know what kinds of shooting ou'd like to do, you can then research the strengths of the system, including costs. Nikon is known for wide angle lenses, good low light autofocus, and excellent flash system (though this is talking about add-on flashes, not built-in ones really). Canon is known for their telephoto lenses, their excellent high-ISO performance, and *generally* lower lens costs.
I know none of this is answering the question....but once you decide what you'd like to do most, you can always post back here and get more help.
check out http://www.fredmiranda.com - they have a massive forum over there about photography....plenty to read there that will help you....
is a photo of my toys, excluding a fisheye and 300-800mm which I didn't yet have when I took the photo. I shoot for newspapers, including shooting sports, as well as wildlife for fun, so Ihave concentrated on low light gear, especially low light supertelephotos.
Sporting 61 Spydercos in G-2, AUS-6, 8CR13MoV, ATS-55, H-1, VG-10, CPM-S30V, N690Co, ZDP-189/420J2, ZDP-189, AUS-10, and 52100.
-
grasshopper
- Member
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:04 am
- Location: Tombstone,AZ
Thanks for the replies.I am curious as to the opinions of "aftermarket"
lenes. I have always thought that in order to get the best quality
results that generally speaking it was better to go with the manufacturer's
lenses.Better quality,better optics etc etc?? I realize that the lenses
will impact the results more than the megapixels which is the main
reason for swithching to the SLR format.I "assume" that the manufacturers
lenes will usually give better pics.Plz correct me if I am wrong.
The 18-55 mm is just a starting point.
The kit lenses are all nikon or canon lenses though the canon
doesn't specify if it is the model II. Is this cause for concern?
Daniel, did you get a job with PD at the new mine in Safford??
Ed
lenes. I have always thought that in order to get the best quality
results that generally speaking it was better to go with the manufacturer's
lenses.Better quality,better optics etc etc?? I realize that the lenses
will impact the results more than the megapixels which is the main
reason for swithching to the SLR format.I "assume" that the manufacturers
lenes will usually give better pics.Plz correct me if I am wrong.
The 18-55 mm is just a starting point.
The kit lenses are all nikon or canon lenses though the canon
doesn't specify if it is the model II. Is this cause for concern?
Daniel, did you get a job with PD at the new mine in Safford??
Ed
Nope, interviewed with PD (Freeport- McMoran), but I did not get the job. Ot was in Morenci. I still am applying there, though.
As far as aftermarket lenses, there are many excellent alternatives offered now by Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina. Many offer excellent image quality at a much better price.
In general, the Nikon and Canon lenses are better in their professional lines, but when you get into their less expensive lines, it is hit and miss. Some are great ones and some are dogs.
You can check reviews here for some good analysis on the lenses.
You can also visit Canon forums and Nikon forums for great user feedback. As malice4you posted, fredmiranda.com has some good feedback under reviews.
The Canon 18-55mm model II has IS added which allows you to eliminate some of the hand holding blur and allows you to shoot at lower speeds or higher f-stops. It is a better lens than the previous model, but there are still better choices. The 17-85mm also has IS and is a better lens, but the Sigma and Tamrons that I noted above will give even better photos, in my opinion.
As far as aftermarket lenses, there are many excellent alternatives offered now by Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina. Many offer excellent image quality at a much better price.
In general, the Nikon and Canon lenses are better in their professional lines, but when you get into their less expensive lines, it is hit and miss. Some are great ones and some are dogs.
You can check reviews here for some good analysis on the lenses.
You can also visit Canon forums and Nikon forums for great user feedback. As malice4you posted, fredmiranda.com has some good feedback under reviews.
The Canon 18-55mm model II has IS added which allows you to eliminate some of the hand holding blur and allows you to shoot at lower speeds or higher f-stops. It is a better lens than the previous model, but there are still better choices. The 17-85mm also has IS and is a better lens, but the Sigma and Tamrons that I noted above will give even better photos, in my opinion.
-
malice4you
- Member
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:14 am
- Location: NJ
I personally own two Sigma lenses, the $650 150mm macro, and a $7000 300-800mm, and would not hesitate for a second to reccomend at least some of their lenses....generally their EX or EX DG lines. I have owned Tamron lenses as well, and the optics are quite good as well. I have no experience with Tokina lenses, but I'd reccomend them based upon reviews. However, I think that if I had a preference, I'd get Canon/Nikon, then Sigma, then Tamron, and finally Tokina. The problem with Tamron and Tokina is generally that they have slower autofocusing systems than Canon's USM or Sigma's HSM (I forget the term Nikon uses for their fasest autofocus systems)
I'm biased and know mostly canon, but nikon generally has similar offerings if you swing that way.
Anyway...in terms of lenses, for a good primary lens from Canon, the 17-85mm IS lens is a good start, but about $500 last I looked. I have not used or read enough about the 18-55 II, but I suspect it would be a decent first lens as long as there is a lot of light.
For a very nice first lens, there is the Canon 17-40 f/4L, which is about $680. However, if you want to take photos of distant objects, it's not the best choice. A similar lens that costs about 1/2 is Tamron's 17-35mm 2.8-4, similar optical quality to the Canon but it focuses a bit slower...I liked mine other than that autofocus speed...
As a first/general use lens, I would not get any lenses that are over 18mm - 18mm is reasonably wide on a digital camera with a 1.5x/1.6x crop, but lenses with a 24/28mm as their widest angle are just not nearly wide enough on an average digital camera. When you're up against a wall indoors and trying to get a shot of all your family and relatives...it does make a difference. There are packages that sometimes include canon's 28-135mm IS lens....it's just not wide enough on the digital rebel series or 40D....
I would generally avoid getting any lenses that are called 'superzooms' - there are only two exceptions to that rule, one is a nikon 18-200mm, the other a canon 28-300mm. Other superzooms compromise image quality for the 'convenience' of having one lens (essentially making your dSLR into a very large point and shoot...)
Instead of a superzoom, a set of two lenses would be optimal. Something like a 17-85 or 18-55, paired with a 70-300mm IS lens, or a 17-40 f4L and a 70-200mm f/4L. Without an idea of your budget, I don't know what to suggest. If you're on a very limited budget, a 18-55 IS and 75-300 USM lens would be acceptable, though I would strongly suggest saving up for better lenses. http://www.bhphotovideo.com is usually the only place I order new lenses from, though I get used lenses from the buy&sell section of fredmiranda.
I don't know your level of experience with photography, but I feel the need to explain a few things for anyone who has not had experience with photography other than point and shoots...
You heard me mention wide angle lenses, which is a lens with a focal length of under 50mm. Lenses with a focal length of greater than 50mm are considered telephotos. Lenses with focal lengths of 50mm (±8mm) are considered 'normal' - normal being about the same angle of view as the human eye.
I mentioned a few lenses before, like the Canon 17-40mm f/4 before. The 17-40mm part means this is a wide angle lens that zooms. The f/4 part is the aperture, which is what determines how much light gets into the lens and controls how fast you can shoot in low light situations and still get a properly exposed photo. When it comes to aperture, the lower the number, the better. An f/5.6 lens lets in 1/2 the amount of light as an f/4 lens, meaning that it takes twice the amount of time to properly expose a photo. An f/5.6 lens lets in 1/4 the amount of light as an f/2.8 lens, meaning it takes 4 times the time to get a properly exposed photo. f/5.6 is fine when you have lots of light...but you don't always have perfect conditions (especially indoors.) I would avoid any lenses that are slower (higher numbers) than f/5.6.
Also consider an external flash, since onboard flashes are useless beyond 15 or so feet. Canon's 430EX is a very nice unit, and Nikon's SB600 is also a nice flash.
A quality setup is never cheap. I know firsthand that getting cheap gear to start, then selling it and getting new gear, ends up far more expensive in the long run. This is why I suggest the 17-40 and 70-200, and possibly the 430EX flash....amazing quality lenses for the prices. I own the 17-40 f/4L, owned the 70-200 f/4L, and own the 430EX.
Oh, and while I'm spending your money, make sure you get at least a 2GB Sandisk Ultra II memory card. Lexar is also a good brand.... Whatever card you get, make sure it's rated for at least 60x write speeds....
http://www.airsoftnj.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3933 - this was a thread on another forum i'm on where someone asked about sports cameras that also has a really long post by me about dSLRs....
I'm biased and know mostly canon, but nikon generally has similar offerings if you swing that way.
Anyway...in terms of lenses, for a good primary lens from Canon, the 17-85mm IS lens is a good start, but about $500 last I looked. I have not used or read enough about the 18-55 II, but I suspect it would be a decent first lens as long as there is a lot of light.
For a very nice first lens, there is the Canon 17-40 f/4L, which is about $680. However, if you want to take photos of distant objects, it's not the best choice. A similar lens that costs about 1/2 is Tamron's 17-35mm 2.8-4, similar optical quality to the Canon but it focuses a bit slower...I liked mine other than that autofocus speed...
As a first/general use lens, I would not get any lenses that are over 18mm - 18mm is reasonably wide on a digital camera with a 1.5x/1.6x crop, but lenses with a 24/28mm as their widest angle are just not nearly wide enough on an average digital camera. When you're up against a wall indoors and trying to get a shot of all your family and relatives...it does make a difference. There are packages that sometimes include canon's 28-135mm IS lens....it's just not wide enough on the digital rebel series or 40D....
I would generally avoid getting any lenses that are called 'superzooms' - there are only two exceptions to that rule, one is a nikon 18-200mm, the other a canon 28-300mm. Other superzooms compromise image quality for the 'convenience' of having one lens (essentially making your dSLR into a very large point and shoot...)
Instead of a superzoom, a set of two lenses would be optimal. Something like a 17-85 or 18-55, paired with a 70-300mm IS lens, or a 17-40 f4L and a 70-200mm f/4L. Without an idea of your budget, I don't know what to suggest. If you're on a very limited budget, a 18-55 IS and 75-300 USM lens would be acceptable, though I would strongly suggest saving up for better lenses. http://www.bhphotovideo.com is usually the only place I order new lenses from, though I get used lenses from the buy&sell section of fredmiranda.
I don't know your level of experience with photography, but I feel the need to explain a few things for anyone who has not had experience with photography other than point and shoots...
You heard me mention wide angle lenses, which is a lens with a focal length of under 50mm. Lenses with a focal length of greater than 50mm are considered telephotos. Lenses with focal lengths of 50mm (±8mm) are considered 'normal' - normal being about the same angle of view as the human eye.
I mentioned a few lenses before, like the Canon 17-40mm f/4 before. The 17-40mm part means this is a wide angle lens that zooms. The f/4 part is the aperture, which is what determines how much light gets into the lens and controls how fast you can shoot in low light situations and still get a properly exposed photo. When it comes to aperture, the lower the number, the better. An f/5.6 lens lets in 1/2 the amount of light as an f/4 lens, meaning that it takes twice the amount of time to properly expose a photo. An f/5.6 lens lets in 1/4 the amount of light as an f/2.8 lens, meaning it takes 4 times the time to get a properly exposed photo. f/5.6 is fine when you have lots of light...but you don't always have perfect conditions (especially indoors.) I would avoid any lenses that are slower (higher numbers) than f/5.6.
Also consider an external flash, since onboard flashes are useless beyond 15 or so feet. Canon's 430EX is a very nice unit, and Nikon's SB600 is also a nice flash.
A quality setup is never cheap. I know firsthand that getting cheap gear to start, then selling it and getting new gear, ends up far more expensive in the long run. This is why I suggest the 17-40 and 70-200, and possibly the 430EX flash....amazing quality lenses for the prices. I own the 17-40 f/4L, owned the 70-200 f/4L, and own the 430EX.
Oh, and while I'm spending your money, make sure you get at least a 2GB Sandisk Ultra II memory card. Lexar is also a good brand.... Whatever card you get, make sure it's rated for at least 60x write speeds....
http://www.airsoftnj.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3933 - this was a thread on another forum i'm on where someone asked about sports cameras that also has a really long post by me about dSLRs....
Sporting 61 Spydercos in G-2, AUS-6, 8CR13MoV, ATS-55, H-1, VG-10, CPM-S30V, N690Co, ZDP-189/420J2, ZDP-189, AUS-10, and 52100.
-
grasshopper
- Member
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:04 am
- Location: Tombstone,AZ
Daniel and Malice, thank you for your VERY thoughtful replies. I appreciate
the time you guys took to reply to me during the
holiday season.I will do some research concerning
lenses and flashes.Seems now I have even more
decisions to make. :eek: :eek: But, like I said this
is a starting point for me.
I did, 10 years ago have a pretty nice Canon
T90 and a A-1(?) with some decent lenses and
a nice flash. All my equipment got ripped off
during a home burglary.It has been a long decade
of using cheap stuff since :)
Any last thoughts on the bodies I've selected??
Thanks again and MERRY CHRISTMAS ED
the time you guys took to reply to me during the
holiday season.I will do some research concerning
lenses and flashes.Seems now I have even more
decisions to make. :eek: :eek: But, like I said this
is a starting point for me.
I did, 10 years ago have a pretty nice Canon
T90 and a A-1(?) with some decent lenses and
a nice flash. All my equipment got ripped off
during a home burglary.It has been a long decade
of using cheap stuff since :)
Any last thoughts on the bodies I've selected??
Thanks again and MERRY CHRISTMAS ED
Hi Ed,
don't overlook the Pentax offerings. Here's a link that shows you what they're capable of:
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home# ... anguage=EN
don't overlook the Pentax offerings. Here's a link that shows you what they're capable of:
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home# ... anguage=EN
WTC # 1441
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marco_5280/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marco_5280/
-
mrappraisit
- Member
- Posts: 1435
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:28 am
- Location: AZ,480
I personally use a nikon D70. The D70 is now discontinued, but it has been an awesome camera. My wife and i have used it for 4+/- years with no trouble. The D70 has been to Hawaii twice and all over the Southwest with never any trouble. My brother in-law has a D80 he got about a years ago and he has had a similar trouble free experience. While i cant argue the technical merits of either I think the Nikon products often represent a better value for your dollar than the Cannon product, especially the DSLR's.
If you want information overload check out this website:
http://www.dpreview.com
Have fun with the new camera :)
If you want information overload check out this website:
http://www.dpreview.com
Have fun with the new camera :)
After enlightenment, the laundry.
-
spyderknut
- Member
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:33 am
- Location: North Central Florida
I bought the Canon XTI last year and have been very happy with it for shooting mostly general purpose family shots. I recently replaced the Kit lens my sons broke with a 17-85mm IS lens I like very much so far. I think the 40D adds spot metering and some eyecup options you don't get with the XTI but at my level, I don't miss these features. I figure I can always get a new body after a few years of further developments and improvements.
"There's no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothing." -- my grandfather
Collector #041
Collector #041
I would have to disagree with the comment about the lower level SLR cameras. While they may not be as feature rich as the more expensive models, they are capable of taking very good pictures. IMHO, the person behind the camera is the most important part of the picture taking equation.Vincent wrote:I think lower level SLR like the rebel dont take that great of pictures, but if you look at the Canon mark series and just look at the pictures that thing takes, just wow. I also think the nikon d80 is great from what ive seen it take/
One thing to look for is how easy is it to make setting changes. The Canon XTi and the Nikon D80 will let you make some of these changes very easily. The Nikon D40x makes you do a bit of menu diving to make these changes.
I recently just picked up the Sony A100. I like the camera a lot. If I had had the money, the Nikon D80 would have been my choice. I think it is a very nice camera which borrows a lot from it's bigger brother the D200.
Also, don't get real hung up on having to have a 10 MP camera. The 6 MP cameras can do a great job. Unless you are going to be blowing the pictures up large or doing a lot of cropping, the 10MP camera may not be necessary.
Also, I have read some great comments about the new Canon 18-55 IS lens.
malice4you, you have some great gear there!!
Ron
http://ront.smugmug.com/
Shine On...
Shine On...