Looking to buy a DSLR

[DisgruntledVirus]

I recently decided I want to start really getting into photography, and have started doing research on buying a DSLR in the next month or so. From the research I have done I have basically narrowed it down to the Cannon Eos XSi, Nikon D300, or Nikon D80 (if there are any others in the D300 or cheaper range let me know).

Here is a bit of what I am looking for in a camera:

I want to stay <$1500 if possible (the D300 is over that I know, but the thread about one from Dell being just over that made me add it to the list). Ideally $1200 would be a better price range for me, but price isn't nearly as important is PQ. For a lens+body+basic accessories (bag, some starting filters, etc) I want to stay under $2k all said and done.

It will be used for primarily for landscapes, and nature shots (this does mean action shots of animals/water), with some sports included.

I have no lenses or current photo gear other then a 4 year old Sony P&S 3.2 mp camera, so I am not locked into any brand (from pre-existing cameras for example).

I am working on learning as much as I can about the current state of photography (as I have a limited knowledge that is just from growing up and my parents taking pictures).

I will be shooting in RAW format 99% of the time (maybe RAW+JPEG).

If possible I would like to do SD cards (I have numerous ones already from other devices), but could do CF as well. I really don't want to get into anything other then those two though as I have a PDA that I am thinking about using for some quick viewing on a bigger screen (if I do RAW+JPEG and just view the JPEG's of course).

I went to BB a few nights ago to play with the D80 and XSi, but was having issues with Live View on both. Is Live View really a feature that is used, or do most people use the view finder?

Also I do have PS CS2, what other software is needed to process images?

I will of course be going to local stores and researching more, but any insights anybody here can give would be much appriciated.

 

[OdiN]

Viewfinder all the way. Only time I use LiveView is at a wedding doing an over-the-head shot at a reception when people are dancing, etc. For what you want, I think it would be better to spend less on the body and more on the lens/lenses.

Maybe a D80 ($730) + 18-200 VR ($680) + Circular Polarizer + Memory + Bag, etc.

Or a 30D ($799) + 17-40mm L ($670) + 70-400 F/4L ($580) + maybe 50mm f/1.8 ($90) + Circular Polarizer + Memory + Bag, etc.

The Canon will cost more, but you are getting higher quality lenses with that package. There are cheaper lenses that can be had. The Nikon is nice because it's a single lens solution, with VR. Though the aperture is not constant, but it has a good range.

Another Canon Package would be 30D ($799) + 17-85mm IS ($490) + 70-400 F/4L ($580) - This gives you a good quality L for longer zoom (decent for sports) but a lower quality on your wide side...though still a good lens Or:

30D ($799) + 17-40mm L ($670) + 55-250mm IS ($280) - this gives you an L lens on your wider angle for your landscapes, plus a longer zoom lens.

Oh I guess LiveView can come in somewhat handy for landscape on a tripod - you can zoom in and do manual focus on a specific part of the image. It's also really nice for macro.

 

[OdiN]

OOPS....quote rather than edit...

 

[jpeyton]

Unless you're buying used, I would vote the D80 off the island; it's being replaced in the near future with a better model (probably around the Photokina trade show).

The D300 is state of the art; the best sub-$2000 camera on the market. It will probably have more features than you know what to do with, but some benefits are visible for everyone (class-leading high ISO performance, 3" VGA LCD, 51-pt AF, dual-mode Live View).

The XSi is currently the most feature-rich entry-level DSLR on the market; excellent resolution, dual-mode Live View, 3" LCD, great high-ISO performance, etc. You might also want to add the Canon 40D to your list; a great upgrade from the XSi.

So it really comes down to 'feel' and 'budget'. Hold the cameras in your hands, fiddle with the menus and buttons (see what feels more natural), look through the viewfinders, look at the displays...you want to pick a camera that makes the technology as seamless as possible.

And of course, budget. The XSi is a $800 body; the 40D is a $1200 body; the D300 is a $1700 body. You want to buy a quality lens to go with your purchase, and I would suggest the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (about $400) for a great walk-around lens. Don't worry about memory card formats; memory is dirt cheap these days.

 

[pennylane]

The D80 does not have live view. Some of the cheaper Nikons use SD. The more expensive ones use CF. I think Nikon bodies feel better in my hands than Canon ones, but that's personal preference. You couldn't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon. The D80 is a very old body and is due to be replaced in Nikon's line-up. Everybody's waiting for Nikon to announce a D90. That may affect your decision, I dunno. You could get a D80 for very cheap used now.

I would recommend getting a cheaper body and more expensive lenses. You'll get better bang for buck. I don't think you really need a camera on the level of the D300 at this point. Have you thought about what lenses you want? Canon and Nikon have very complete systems, but they're not identical. If there's a particular lens you want that's only available from one and not the other (or one has a better version), that may well be the deciding factor.

Photoshop is probably all you'll need in terms of software. At least for now. You may want to add something like Lightroom but you should try what you have first.

Anyway I don't know that much. But I'd say figure out what lenses you'd be interested in. That should be something you consider when you figure out which system you want to adopt.

To echo jpeyton, the Tamron 17-50mm is excellent and very affordable, and will work with either system. You may also be interested in wide-angle lenses in the 10-20mm range.

 

[Funyuns101]

I don't believe that the Nikon D80 has live-view.
That being said, the 30D is something you should look into as Odin said.

I wouldn't bother looking at the XSi if you're even considering the D80 or D300.
If you can afford to wait, the D90 SHOULD come out sooner or later which means price drops for the D80.

I have to throw in that you take a look at the Pentax K20D as I have a K10D and love the features that you get w/it for the price.
Also, ss many AT'ers will, I recommend you to look into a used Nikon D50 if you're just getting started.

 

[AndrewR]

You're missing several cameras that fall within your range, but I have to say your range is a little...um, broad. The differences between the XSi and the D300 are vast, and you're skipping over Canon's D40 as the next step up from the XSi. Within that price range, you could also consider, by brand:

-Sony A200, A300/350, A700
-Pentax K20D, K200D
-Olympus E series (I don't know their models that well)
-Nikon D60
-Canon 40D
-Samsung and Panasonic both have DSLRs but are clones of others (don't know which)

Call around to Best Buys in the area and ask if they have the A700 body-only in stock. Right now, if you can find it, it's the best deal available -- some are selling for $500 now, originally $1400. No one in their right mind would question the value of that deal, and it's a fine camera that at least matches the Canon 40D (more than a few would say it exceeds it).

Obviously, the D300 is going to be the best camera in the entire list, but the price reflects that, as you mention. I'd recommend going for a lower model and getting better lenses and additional accessories like a tripod and some filters.

For landscape: You'll want a wide angle lens of some sort. On my 1.5x camera, my widest is 17-35mm, and I have found that it works well enough for me. I don't use 17mm all that often, and I've never felt overly limited by not having a super wide angle like Sony's 11-18mm (disclosure, I'm a Sony A100/A700 owner). By avoiding the super wides, you'll have money for other items. If you find yourself limited in the future, then look at a super wide angle lens. For the wide angle lens, you will definitely want a circular polarizer (CPL) and maybe a UV filter. Since I use the CPL almost continuously on my wide angle, I don't use a UV filter -- when the CPL isn't on, I'm either doing just a few shots, or the lens cap is on. Also, you need a good tripod for landscapes to maximize sharpness on long(er) exposures. Invest in good legs and a decent ballhead, the latter being more useful than the 3-axis video heads that you'll find. I trust Bogen-Manfrotto, but others have found good ones with lesser priced brands (Slik? can't recall). Last item -- you might also consider a remote shutter release for tripod use, but you can get away with using a self-timer (gets annoying after a short while though).

For nature shots: Telephoto. CPL. Tripod. For birds, loooong telephoto -- longer the better, within reason. I tried using a 300mm lens and always felt I didn't have enough reach. Now I have a 200-500mm (Tamron), and it's much easier to get shots of birds that tend to fly when you approach.

For sports: Fast telephoto, not as long as the animal one (<300mm). For indoor sports, people find it difficult without a large aperture telephoto, which blows your budget (typically, the 70-200mm f/2.8), but higher ISOs can work to mitigate it. For burst shooting, you'll want a fast memory card -- at the very least the Sandisk Ultra II or equivalent but better with the III (the IV will only show improvement in some cameras from what I've read).

On the memory card issue, if you want to get serious about photography, I'd stick with CompactFlash. It's more or less the de facto standard of "higher end" DSLR photography with SD relegated to the lower end models (CF is always slightly faster and slightly larger). I know Nikon's cheaper cameras use SD, but I guess Canon has jumped on that bandwagon with the XSi (stupid, IMO). Sony does not use it on any of their cameras (some dual use with MStick Pro); neither does Olympus (dual slot with xD). Pentax likes SD as well. The way I look at it, if you buy Nikon or Canon and start with an SD camera, if you buy high speed cards then decide to move up their camera line, you have to scrap your card collection and buy all CF cards.

Just my opinion while I wait for a network to come back up. If you have any Sony-specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

 

[AndrewR]

Oh, best advice I've seen on DSLR buying: HANDLE THE CAMERA IN A STORE BEFORE BUYING! Seriously, the grips vary quite a bit, and an uncomfortable camera, even with the best features, will likely sit in a bag somewhere not being used. I prefer larger cameras; some people like smaller cameras. It can make a big difference.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
-Olympus E series (I don't know their models that well)

Given OP's expectation, I can say he can rule out the E-4xx to E-5xx series. The E-3 might fit his bill, but the body alone is $1600.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

First thank you very much for all of your in depth responses.

The way I personally tend to buy things is get a nice base (in this case the body) to start with, then build up from there (with lenses and such). I generally am not a fan of going the other way around, but everybody has made me start thinking with photography going with good quality lenses first and a cheaper body will get better quality pictures. This route I can learn more about different lenses, and get a good starting point on the hobby by understanding more about how to use the various settings before moving up into something like the D300.

Odin, thank you for some packages I will be looking into all of those at some photography stores tonight.

For the D80, I have read it is being replaced soon but remember I am not buying tonight and don't have any issues with buying a last gen body if I can get a good deal on it. AFAIK the D90 doesn't add any "killer features" and is an evolutionary step (please correct me if I am wrong though).

I forgot the 40D in there as well, because that was one of the others I was really looking at as well. As for the Sony A700 I will call around BB in the area and try to find it (crosses fingers). The Pentax, and Olympus are also brands I was going to look at, but have not yet so as of now they are TBD. I am hoping the store nearby will have most/all of these bodies to play with them a bit.

I am going to be going this week to a real camera store (not BB), and talking with them for a while playing with different bodies to get a feel for what I like and don't like.

As I have said PQ is above all else. It sounds though that I might want to be focusing on lenses first instead of bodies to that end. AndrewR from your post I need to get at least 2 lenses, one wide lens (<50 mm) for landscape type shots and another (>200 mm) for sports/action/wildlife shots. I plan to buy lenses over time (don't we all?), but for now I need something that will do well with both (with preference to the landscape/scenery shots). So should I stick with a lens in the 50-80 mm range then?

Odin, with regards to Live View I personally like the idea of it (as it's how I use my current Sony P&S), but it really isn't a big deal either way. I figured that it wasn't used that much in photography other then as you said weddings, and when shooting over your head where you cannot use the view finder.

Once again thank you for all of your help so far, and I appriciate any more help anybody can give.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: andylawcc

Originally posted by: AndrewR
-Olympus E series (I don't know their models that well)

Given OP's expectation, I can say he can rule out the E-4xx to E-5xx series. The E-3 might fit his bill, but the body alone is $1600.

The final amount is flexible (as I can put it off another month or two if I think it's worth it). I just would like to stay under $2000 all said and done for now, but once again it could be higher just would have to hold off for a bit to save some more for it.

 

[OdiN]

Lenses are more important than bodies. I always like to use the following shot as an example.

Clicky


That was taken with a 10D. The lens was a 50mm f/1.4.

I can still take excellent pictures with a 10D.

It's less about the body, more about the lens and the eye behind the camera.

Sure the newer stuff in that D300 is nice, but do you really know how to put it to use yet?

The basics are all still the same - Exposure (aperture, shutter speed, ISO), composition, DOF.

You will get better quality by spending more money on lenses than you will by spending more money on a body. By spending more on a body, you have to sacrifice on lenses.

BTW - your lenses are your "base" - bodies get upgraded, but lenses will last forever if properly cared for. They also hold value a LOT better than a body. The majority of what affects the light (your final image) is in the lens - not the body.

 

[andylawcc]

As the saying goes: Body depreicates, Lense doesn't.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

So with my price range any estimates on what I should spend on lenses and what I should spend on the body? I am thinking about 2/3 on two lenses, the rest on the body which would put my body in the $600 range to hit my target end budget with 2 ~$600 lenses (before accessories and such).

So if that is the case then I should be looking at the D40 and XTi, unless I can find a A700 body.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Also how much does sensor size really matter? I know bigger is better, but does an APS size sensor really make that big of a difference from a 35 mm size sensor? The only thing I can think of is the minimum shooting distance, but other then that I can't seem to find that big of a reason why it would matter (other then the same reason a DSLR should beat a P&S with same amount of megapixels).

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Also how much does sensor size really matter? I know bigger is better, but does an APS size sensor really make that big of a difference from a 35 mm size sensor? The only thing I can think of is the minimum shooting distance, but other then that I can't seem to find that big of a reason why it would matter (other then the same reason a DSLR should beat a P&S with same amount of megapixels).

minimum shooting distance is dependent on the lens, and is completely independent of the sensor. magnification will change, though. multiply the lens's stated magnification by the crop factor to get the efffective magnification.

135 sensors are 2.56 times larger than a canon APS-C sensor, and 2.25 times larger than a nikon/sony/pentax/samsung DX/APS sensor.

that translates into a sensitivity advantage of 1.25~1.33 stops for the 135 sensor, assuming similar technologies were used to build the sensor. from what i've seen, this holds up even with different MP after resizing and using noise ninja until similar detail levels are reached.

for 4/3 the advantage of a 135 sensor is 2 stops.

the second difference, and the one most people first see, is that the larger sensor gives a wider field of view for the same focal length. so you have something called a crop factor (on canon usually 1.6x, on nikon/sony/pentax 1.5x, on 4/3 2x), which you multiply the focal length by the find the 35 mm equivalent focal length. for example, the sigma 10-20 on it's widest setting on a canon 40D is equivalent to a 16mm lens on a canon 5D. pretty straightforward.

the last difference, and a bit more confusing, is in depth of field. the 135 sensor will have less depth of field for a given equivalent focal length and relative aperture than the smaller sensor. for canon, it's about 1.33 stops, nikon/sony/pentax 1.25 stops, and 4/3 it's 2 stops. so, to get the same depth of field as an 85 mm f/2 lens on a 5D, you'd need a 50 f/1.2 lens on a canon 40D and a 43 f/1.0 lens on 4/3. or, to do it the other way, to match the 35-100 f/2 lens on 4/3, a 5D would require a 70-200 f/4 lens.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
First thank you very much for all of your in depth responses.

The way I personally tend to buy things is get a nice base (in this case the body) to start with, then build up from there (with lenses and such)...

I'll echo the comments above -- the base is your lens collection. Amen to the poster who said that bodies depreciate, but lenses do not. The one caveat is that if you buy a cheap lens, the selling price may be higher than the actual worth. The good part is that the more expensive lenses tend to hold their value better.

For the D80, I have read it is being replaced soon...

If you wait until the D90 is out, the price savings on the D80 could be considerable. Keep checking stores and places like DPReview.com (Nikon DSLR forum) or Nikonians where you'll be likely to find some information about clearance deals -- or even the good ol' AT Hot Deals forum.

AndrewR from your post I need to get at least 2 lenses, one wide lens (<50 mm) for landscape type shots and another (>200 mm) for sports/action/wildlife shots. I plan to buy lenses over time (don't we all?), but for now I need something that will do well with both (with preference to the landscape/scenery shots). So should I stick with a lens in the 50-80 mm range then?

I'd go for something wider than 50mm if you really want landscapes. I think someone mentioned the Tamron 17-50/2.8, which I've heard is a good performer and has the added benefit of a fast shutter. The Sony-mount equivalent would be the Konica-Minolta 17-35mm f/2.8-4D (they haven't re-issued a similar lens yet). I know Canon has a 17-40mm f/4L, though I think it's considerably more expensive. Just off the top of my head, I don't know the other line-ups that well.

You could consider adding a consumer-grade 75-300mm to experiment with the telephoto side before dropping serious cash on a big zoom.

Odin, with regards to Live View I personally like the idea of it (as it's how I use my current Sony P&S), but it really isn't a big deal either way. I figured that it wasn't used that much in photography other then as you said weddings, and when shooting over your head where you cannot use the view finder.

It isn't used that much in photography with DSLRs because it is only a VERY recent feature and hasn't been all that successfully implemented, especially by Canon and Nikon (who sell the most -- Olympus has had a good one). Sony has a better LV now (faster focusing, faster shutter/shorter delay), but in order to do that, they had to compromise on the viewfinder. I had the Sony F717 with the swiveling body, and the ability to take a photo at waist level was AWESOME for candid shots -- people think you're fiddling with the camera, not snapping photos (I imagine that it's a little more conspicuous on a DSLR with the mirror/shutter sound). Is it necessary? Nope. Can it be a big benefit? Yep.

The next time I'm sprawled on the ground trying to get a low perspective on something, I may change my mind about it being necessary.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Maybe a D80 ($730) + 18-200 VR ($680) + Circular Polarizer + Memory + Bag, etc.

Or a 30D ($799) + 17-40mm L ($670) + 70-400 F/4L ($580) + maybe 50mm f/1.8 ($90) + Circular Polarizer + Memory + Bag, etc.

Yay let's recommend a Nikon with a slow consumer grade lens, but Canon with L glass. :roll:

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: OdiN
Maybe a D80 ($730) + 18-200 VR ($680) + Circular Polarizer + Memory + Bag, etc.

Or a 30D ($799) + 17-40mm L ($670) + 70-400 F/4L ($580) + maybe 50mm f/1.8 ($90) + Circular Polarizer + Memory + Bag, etc.

Yay let's recommend a Nikon with a slow consumer grade lens, but Canon with L glass. :roll:

I recommended that one because of the wide range in a single lens. It's not all that slow. It should do landscapes just fine.

Notice how I said maybe. Also, I'm less familiar with the Noink lens lineup vs. the Canon.

This is not a commentary on which one is better, just a suggestion of an area to look at. I had heard good things about that 18-200 VR, so there you go.

I'm not going to take the time to do bunches of research on Noink lenses - he can do that himself, he's buying.

Note how I said that the Canon would cost more due to the higher quality lenses.

I fail to see what your point is here.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Also, I'm less familiar with the Noink lens lineup vs. the Canon.

Then stick with what you know.

Originally posted by: OdiN
I'm not going to take the time to do bunches of research on Noink lenses - he can do that himself, he's buying.

Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of asking the question?

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: OdiN
Maybe a D80 ($730) + 18-200 VR ($680) + Circular Polarizer + Memory + Bag, etc.

Or a 30D ($799) + 17-40mm L ($670) + 70-400 F/4L ($580) + maybe 50mm f/1.8 ($90) + Circular Polarizer + Memory + Bag, etc.

Yay let's recommend a Nikon with a slow consumer grade lens, but Canon with L glass. :roll:

I recommended that one because of the wide range in a single lens. It's not all that slow. It should do landscapes just fine.

Notice how I said maybe. Also, I'm less familiar with the Noink lens lineup vs. the Canon.

This is not a commentary on which one is better, just a suggestion of an area to look at. I had heard good things about that 18-200 VR, so there you go.

I'm not going to take the time to do bunches of research on Noink lenses - he can do that himself, he's buying.

Note how I said that the Canon would cost more due to the higher quality lenses.

I fail to see what your point is here.

I don't see much advantage of the 30d over the 20d.

I'd say get a 20d and skip the 17-40L F4. Save a couple hundred and get teh Tamron 17-50 2.8 or spend another 200 hundred and get the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS. Couple that with a more discrete 70-300 since having a white lens is often intimidating and attracts a lot of attention.

500 20d
400 tamron 17-50 or (900 Canon 17-55is)
100 circular polarizer
50 bag
50 memory
100 tripod (if you feel like you need it)

 

[pennylane]

Yeah, I think using the word "noink" is pretty lame, but it's OdiN and given his contributions to the forum, I wouldn't get worked up about it.

But yeah, something to the level of a D80 is plenty camera. I still have a D50 and while I'm tempted to upgrade, I'll hang onto it because it takes great pics.

 

[OdiN]

lol Noink is just a term of endearment

If I was actually being all brand superior, I would have just left the Nikon out of the picture completely. I put more lens options for Canon because I am more familiar with the options available.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: fanerman91
Yeah, I think using the word "noink" is pretty lame, but it's OdiN and given his contributions to the forum, I wouldn't get worked up about it.

But yeah, something to the level of a D80 is plenty camera. I still have a D50 and while I'm tempted to upgrade, I'll hang onto it because it takes great pics.

If I were looking at the lower end of Nikon's line, I'd get the D50 before the D40 or D60. The hamstringing of their lower bodies (no AF motor) is a little pathetic. I had the D50 briefly, and it was a fine camera.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Well I didn't get a chance to go to the closest photo shop last night, as they closed at 5 .

Okay so I need to look more at lenses then the body, and in that regard what are some good websites that I can do research on the various lenses (reviews, etc)?

tfinch2, it doesn't defeat the purpose because I am going to be doing a lot of research but need some help with starting points. So while Odin might not know Nikon lenses, he gave me a place to start from which I appriciate greatly.

As for the Canon vs Nikon debate, I like both brands but have used Canon Rebel's in the past (film versions). That really doesn't matter much to me as I will be going with whatever brand fits the lenses I decide on. I am starting to realize that lenses make more of the picture then the body, and the body you can upgrade every few years if need be but lenses (if properly cared for) last forever.

So it's looking like I will spend around $1k on lenses (and most likely get two lenses to start with), and $500 or so on a body. Unfortunately the A700 is OOS in all my local BB, so that won't be an option unless I randomly come across it at a camera shop or something.

As a side note, near me I used to have 3-4 camera shops but they have all closed save 1. What is up with that?