Help choosing an SLR

[dug777]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i would recommend against dropping nearly $2000 on your first SLR. you may hate it and the way the camera body depreciates you'll be out of a lot of money in a hurry. a used D200 still pumps out 5 fps for under $1000. watching for deals on a 40D may net one for a similar price. you probably won't notice the fps difference, frankly. (though the 40D will have a bit faster depreciation than the already several year old D200).

further, the idea of future proofing your camera purchase by buying an expensive body is a misconception. the way you future proof your system is by buying nice lenses. not to mention that, unlike computers where new software requires more resources and so they get 'slower' over time, cameras are pretty much just as fast on their 100,000th click as they are on their first.

plus, the most important thing for action shots is not the FPS of the camera but whether your lenses are fast enough to allow a shutter speed that can stop the action without kicking the sensitivity so high that you get pics that are noisy. though the d300 has greatly improved noise performance over it's predecessor i'd still be wary of the top ISO ratings (nikon's noise reduction, from limited reports on the web, seems a bit over-aggressive). you'll want a set of lenses that are f/2.8 or faster (so between f/1.4 and f/2.8, lower numbers are better). with those lenses you should be able to keep the sensitivity low, the shutter fast, and freeze action. you'll want lenses with either USM (canon's sonic focus motors), AF-S (nikon's equivlent), or similar. the sonic motors are much faster than the regular focus motors, so you won't miss shots while waiting for the camera to focus.

also, you said you want light weight. none of these cameras are. the D300 weighs 2 pounds all by itself. the 40D weighs just a few ounces less. with a fast telephoto lens add another couple of pounds. just thought i'd warn you.

Originally posted by: dug777
That's where I'm at :thumbsup:

The viewfinder on the 450D (XSi) is also a nasty pentamirror job again. I haven't seen any reviews yet, but hopefully it's not another horror like the 400D viewfinder.

*hugs his big, bright pentaprism viewfinder*

the XSi finder is a lot bigger than the XTi finder, dug. and i'll note that pentamirrors aren't anywhere near as awful as some would seem to think they are. i've seen few complaints about the pentamirror in the k100d, for example (one poster on another forum said the difference between his pentamirror pentax and his pentaprism pentax was pretty minor).

I doubt you'll argue that the 400D's viewfinder is awful, and while the 450D gives you better magnification, on the specs it's still not as good as my 'old' D80 viewfinder, and by it's very nature going be darker than the D80's pentaprism.

 

[soydios]

$2200 and no tax you say? alright, I'll call it $2000 before shipping, memory cards, a spare battery, and filters. all prices are in US Dollars. Canon and Nikon will make equivalently good photos; the main difference is in the ergonomics and exposure/flash metering, both of which are in Nikon's favor IMO.

Canon:
- 40D + EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM kit ($1665 out-of-stock @ B&H Photo)
- EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ($550 @ B&H Photo)
total = $2215 (damn, Canon glass is expensive)

Nikon:
- D200 (~$850 good condition @ eBay)
- AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G VR ($690 preorder @ B&H Photo) or AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ($350 @ B&H Photo)
- AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR ($480 @ B&H Photo)
total = $2020 or $1680, depending on standard zoom lens choice

comparing the above systems, note that the 40D is a prosumer body with scene presets, while the D200 is designed to be a backup or lightweight travel body for a pro using a D2, and thus shares a lot of the same features. TBH, I'm astonished that you can get such an amazing body in great condition for $850 on eBay, and most are going for less. the Nikon 18-70mm zooms just as wide as the Canon 17-85mm due to their different focal length multipliers (Nikon=1.5x, Canon=1.6x), but the 16-85mm lets the Nikon system zoom slightly wider.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: soydios
$2200 and no tax you say? alright, I'll call it $2000 before shipping, memory cards, a spare battery, and filters. all prices are in US Dollars. Canon and Nikon will make equivalently good photos; the main difference is in the ergonomics and exposure/flash metering, both of which are in Nikon's favor IMO.

Canon:
- 40D + EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM kit ($1665 out-of-stock @ B&H Photo)
- EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ($550 @ B&H Photo)
total = $2215 (damn, Canon glass is expensive)

Nikon:
- D200 (~$850 good condition @ eBay)
- AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G VR ($690 preorder @ B&H Photo) or AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ($350 @ B&H Photo)
- AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR ($480 @ B&H Photo)
total = $2020 or $1680, depending on standard zoom lens choice

comparing the above systems, note that the 40D is a prosumer body with scene presets, while the D200 is designed to be a backup or lightweight travel body for a pro using a D2, and thus shares a lot of the same features. TBH, I'm astonished that you can get such an amazing body in great condition for $850 on eBay, and most are going for less. the Nikon 18-70mm zooms just as wide as the Canon 17-85mm due to their different focal length multipliers (Nikon=1.5x, Canon=1.6x), but the 16-85mm lets the Nikon system zoom slightly wider.

These picks are not that great for someone who will be taking photography courses; they're more of a tourist's kit. For instance, you've picked an overpriced slow midrange zoom on the Canon side (can't speak for the value of the Nikon). Here's just one better way to spend $2000 on a body, lenses and flash for a student:

~$1100 40D body
~$175 18-55 IS
~$75 50mm f/1.8
~$390 100mm f/2
~$240 430EX flash

BTW the 40D is the equal of the 200D in quality, and bests it by a hefty margin in several important functional areas, although it is not as programmable. I don't think the D200 compares favorably with the 40D at all, even if it is cheaper. It is a decent choice at that price point if one is determined to get into the Nikon system with that much to spend on a body, though. In addition, I don't believe Nikon has an important edge in ergonomics or flash.

 

[ElFenix]

going to another country and not getting dinged with sales tax doesn't necessarily mean the price is going to be any better. the US gets electronics cheap.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

I'll nominate your post for most biased and unsubstantiated bash against a non-Canikon DSLR system. Really, it's quite ridiculous.

I'll nominate you for getting emotional.
Increasing availability?
That's for new glass. Seriously, look up on how many lenses you can pick up USED.
That's what it's all about. Go to your local dealer and see how many Sony Carl Zeiss lenses they have in stock used or new.
You can find Canon and Nikon glass anywhere, fleabay, and buy and sell forum with cameras, your local camera store etc. It is actually staggering, and not to admit that would be an EXTREME bias.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: LockeWiggen
Unfortunatly I'm a paintballer and one of the reasons for the camera was to get some high quality shots of paintballing. So I'm assuming I'm gonna need a faster shutter speed and high fps. (I might be compleatly wrong but what the hey )

I've also been reading up on this Image Stability thing. It seems like a really usefull feature to have. So is it in any of the camera's I've mentioned or that have been recomended?

Somewhat useful. I found it helps with long focal lengths and handholding the camera. But IS is namely for shooting still subjects in low light. You mentioned paintball. Here you want high shutter speeds to stop action... IS will be of little use (said little not none). Canon lenses have panning IS which could be useful. Never owned a Nikon VR lens so I can't comment.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Heidfirst
The new lenses aren't that expensive when you compare like for like plus it looks like Sony are learning the game as they go along & are doing cashbacks etc. & becoming more competitive.

Is that something you would actually recommend to someone? Can they really count on Sony dropping prices on their lenses?

You can't necessarily count on Sony dropping the srp of their lenses but you can count on the street prices dropping - exactly the same situation that you find with Canon & Nikon.

Originally posted by: foghorn67
The numbers are against you if you looking for the top tier Sony lenses. Canon and Nikon has sold more for many years. You can visit fredmiranda and find your Canon L or Nikon glass and find it maybe a few hours.

& you can find Minolta AF fit glass pretty easily too if you know where to look.
As I said in ultimate quantity there may be less available but there is also less demand so it balances out to about the same.

Originally posted by: foghorn67

It's already been shown that Sony can effect nr by firmware so that's a possibility.
However, it's turned out that the main problem with high ISO nr isn't the camera, it's the software that people have been using to process RAW (similar happened with Olympus E-3) - ACR which of course is the dominant RAW converter does a lousy job, Sony's is way better but slower but there are also others like Bibble etc. that do a decent job.
& Adobe might patch ACR as they did for the E-3.

Isn't that a bit of an issue on it's own? Adobe by default will pay closer attention the better selling camera series, along with any other third party imaging software, plugins, etc.

Possibly but as there are several alternatives that already do a good job & at least 1 comes free with the camera it's not that big an issue - you just export from another RAW converter than ACR to Photoshop.
& they patched ACR for the E-3 so why not for Sony?

Originally posted by: soydios
the D300 is extremely good for such a densely-packed sensor. (@ElFenix: the A700 applies far more aggressive and irreversible noise reduction).

Actually it doesn't - the D300 has very agressive noise reduction but Nikon process their files very differently from all the other manufacturers which gives a totally different look.
Also see the comments about choice of RAW converter.

Originally posted by: punchkin
I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of in-body stabilization at lengths like 500mm...

you may not be but it demonstrably works.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin
I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of in-body stabilization at lengths like 500mm...

you may not be but it demonstrably works.

Not from what I've seen.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: LockeWiggen
Unfortunatly I'm a paintballer and one of the reasons for the camera was to get some high quality shots of paintballing. So I'm assuming I'm gonna need a faster shutter speed and high fps. (I might be compleatly wrong but what the hey )

I've also been reading up on this Image Stability thing. It seems like a really usefull feature to have. So is it in any of the camera's I've mentioned or that have been recomended?

Somewhat useful. I found it helps with long focal lengths and handholding the camera. But IS is namely for shooting still subjects in low light. You mentioned paintball. Here you want high shutter speeds to stop action... IS will be of little use (said little not none). Canon lenses have panning IS which could be useful. Never owned a Nikon VR lens so I can't comment.

Nikon VR auto-detects panning.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin
I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of in-body stabilization at lengths like 500mm...

you may not be but it demonstrably works.

Not from what I've seen.

link?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin
I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of in-body stabilization at lengths like 500mm...

you may not be but it demonstrably works.

Not from what I've seen.

link?

Yes... link?

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin
I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of in-body stabilization at lengths like 500mm...

you may not be but it demonstrably works.

Not from what I've seen.

link?

Yes... link?

I would like proof as well. I've see the math on other forums (and can't remember exactly) but its something like the in-body IS can not move as much and the in-lens IS once you get beyond a certain focal length.

To the OP...I would get Punchkin's setup if you are looking for more general purpose. If you need the telephoto range, I would drop the 50 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 (won't be useful for shooting paintball, more for low light and portraits) and get the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin
I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of in-body stabilization at lengths like 500mm...

you may not be but it demonstrably works.

Not from what I've seen.

link?

Yes... link?

I would like proof as well. I've see the math on other forums (and can't remember exactly) but its something like the in-body IS can not move as much and the in-lens IS once you get beyond a certain focal length.

To the OP...I would get Punchkin's setup if you are looking for more general purpose. If you need the telephoto range, I would drop the 50 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 (won't be useful for shooting paintball, more for low light and portraits) and get the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM.

He could also just drop the flash I added and substitute the 100-300 USM in its place, and optionally swap the 100mm prime for the 85mm f/1.8. I mainly wanted him to have some wider-aperture lenses because he indicates he will take classes.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Yes... link?

:roll:

 

[Fardringle]

The reviews I have read generally conclude that in-body stabilization is best for shorter focal lengths, first because it is more effective at those lengths where only small shifts of the sensor are required, and second because you get stabilization with any lens that you put on the camera. It still works at longer focal lengths but not as effectively because the sensor can't be shifted as much as is needed for the movement of longer lenses. Manual focus (and possibly even auto focus?) could be more difficult at long focal lengths because the camera and photographer don't see the stabilized image until after the photo has been taken.

In-lens stabilization works better for longer focal lengths but (sometimes) results in more expensive lenses and you have to purchase lenses with IS elements. Lens IS has the advantage of showing a live picture (in the viewfinder or Liveview) of the stabilized image so it's easier to judge ahead of time whether the shot will be blurry or not. The main disadvantage is that older lenses of any focal length do not get any stabilization on these cameras.

Personally, I'd vote for in-body stabilization that can be used where it is most effective (short focal lengths and when used with non-stabilized lenses) and have the option to disable it when a long focal length lens with IS is attached to the camera. Since it appears that Nikon and Canon don't seem to be interested in giving us that option any time soon, this could be a selling point for Sony, Pentax, or Olympus to gain some market share...

 

[jpeyton]

LINK!!!

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
LINK!!!

This seems useless. Who can tell what focal lengths were used, methodology, etc.? A bad study is worse than no study at all.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: jpeyton
LINK!!!

This seems useless. Who can tell what focal lengths were used, methodology, etc.? A bad study is worse than no study at all.

Interesting, because PopPhoto came to the same conclusion you did; that in-lens systems are better for longer focal lengths.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin
I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of in-body stabilization at lengths like 500mm...

you may not be but it demonstrably works.

Not from what I've seen.

You haven't seen much then, have you.

And anyone hand-holding at 500mm is a friggin' idiot to begin with. 500mm is not exactly a walk-around focal length; it's something you'd use with a tripod (or at least a monopod). stabilization is nice, but it's not going to compensate for bad form like hand-holding a 500mm lens.

ZV

 

[tdawg]

You can learn on pretty much anything, so I'll throw out my two cents.

I'm all for going used (KEH.com or something like fredmiranda.com):

Canon 30D or 40D + 70-200 f/4 or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 + 50 f/1.8 + 18-55 Kit lens.
Nikon D1X, D2H, or D200 + 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 + 50 f/1.8 + 18-55 or 18-70 Kit lens.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin
I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of in-body stabilization at lengths like 500mm...

you may not be but it demonstrably works.

Not from what I've seen.

You haven't seen much then, have you.

And anyone hand-holding at 500mm is a friggin' idiot to begin with. 500mm is not exactly a walk-around focal length; it's something you'd use with a tripod (or at least a monopod). stabilization is nice, but it's not going to compensate for bad form like hand-holding a 500mm lens.

ZV

I have seen much. And one can certainly handhold some 500mm lenses, like the Bigma, although maybe not for extended periods. In addition, stabilization is used by many long-lens photogs even when using a tripod. Guess you didn't know any of this-- no sweat.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: jpeyton
LINK!!!

This seems useless. Who can tell what focal lengths were used, methodology, etc.? A bad study is worse than no study at all.

Interesting, because PopPhoto came to the same conclusion you did; that in-lens systems are better for longer focal lengths.

Yep, that's true, but they're so nebulous that we don't know what they mean by phrases like "longer focal lengths". I have seen in-body IS give benefits at 200mm etc.-- and this is certainly longer than wide angle. I guess the study isn't necessarily crap, but it's frustrating not to know what it means or even how it was conducted.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
And anyone hand-holding at 500mm is a friggin' idiot to begin with. 500mm is not exactly a walk-around focal length; it's something you'd use with a tripod (or at least a monopod). stabilization is nice, but it's not going to compensate for bad form like hand-holding a 500mm lens.

ZV

Umm, the most amazing in flight bird photographers I have seen hand hold 500mm f4 lenses.
-edit--
Here is one guy that is known to hand hold.
Osprey at SJWS

i have seen him do this, and no...he is not a big guy. In shape yes, like a Jackie Chan sort of build.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
And anyone hand-holding at 500mm is a friggin' idiot to begin with. 500mm is not exactly a walk-around focal length; it's something you'd use with a tripod (or at least a monopod). stabilization is nice, but it's not going to compensate for bad form like hand-holding a 500mm lens.

ZV

Umm, the most amazing in flight bird photographers I have seen hand hold 500mm f4 lenses.
-edit--
Here is one guy that is known to hand hold.
Osprey at SJWS

i have seen him do this, and no...he is not a big guy. In shape yes, like a Jackie Chan sort of build.

Wow. That's not an understatement to say "most amazing in flight bird photographers." I think a lot of people forget that you have to be in just the right place at just the right time to capture photos like those. He was in the right place at just the right moment an awful lot of times!

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin
I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of in-body stabilization at lengths like 500mm...

you may not be but it demonstrably works.

Not from what I've seen.

link?

If you are looking for a link to some definitive study by somebody like DPReview, Imaging Resource etc. I can't give you one because afaik no-one has done one.
However, from my own & other users' experience it does work - e.g. there is a chap who uses a 600/4 for (iirc) shots of deer & he's positive it works with that.
However, imo (& with my admittedly poor technique) 500mm is pushing it for handholding anyway - yes, you can do it but a monopod is useful too.

The comments about the sensor not being able to move enough for longer lenses has always struck me as odd as at least in my experience camera shake isn't straight up & down but pivots around the camera body/hand & as such it seems to me that it's not the ultimate distance that the front element moves that matters but the angle subtended by that movement & of course at the sensor plane that's not a lot of distance at all.

As for the pros & cons of a stabilised viewfinder or not you can argue that from both sides:
- from the unstabilised pov you are getting realtime feedback as to how much shake there is & this can help you improve your stance & cut it down (which may gain you an additional stop or 2).
The stabilised camp say that it aids with framing.
I've also seen several people on forums etc. reporting that they've felt ill (like motion sickness) when looking at a stabilised image, probably not a high % of users but something that exists for some.
Overall though I think that it's a pretty trivial thing to argue about & if that's what we are fretting about we don't have much to worry about at all.