Cameras Buying a DSLR
- Thread starter RikfromBelgium
- Start date
Germaniac
Tarmac Traveler
I'm so getting the 1000D after this
"The Rebel XS is proving to be a great starter camera for the girls. Planning to shoot birds from a blind in the yard will set my 10-year-old into high anticipation mode for days. She uses the inexpensive Rebel XS and Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS Lens combination for this. The setup is light, sized properly for her and if the worst would happen, the loss is not that high. She is learning a valuable life skill and we are spending time together doing something we both love."
just kidding
haha yep... perfect for a 10-year-old girl, perfect for me.
na but seriously, they are a great start-up camera, and very reasonably priced. the feature set you get for the price (10.1mp, live view, sensor clean, nice screen, decent high-ISO noise control) would have been unheard of only a couple years ago. i shot with one for a couple months in europe (my main body was out of action) and while for my purposes (when coupled with the kit lens) it was a bit limited, it still did a great job.
what most fail to remember is you can still take stunning pictures with these entry-level bodies... a more expensive body may give you more flexibility (particularly with auto focus speed and low light/high ISO ability), but these bodies will do fine in 90% of circumstances.
Germaniac
Tarmac Traveler
Germaniac
Tarmac Traveler
I have asked lots of people, many professional photographers and journalists, but got no clear answer
That's because there is no clear answer! As I said, all brands offer good entry-level products. None, in my mind, stands head and shoulders above the rest; some do some things better, others do others better, some are slightly cheaper but offer less, etc. It's all a compromise. Which is why going with what you like (probably with a slight leaning towards Canon and Nikon, because of their lens range) is probably the best bet.
As far as the body, obv the A300 offers more features than the A200 but you gotta weigh up whether the extra $ is worth it. the A200 is an older model but it won't necessarily take worse photos. As I said, in 90% of circumstances any of these cameras will suffice.
then get a tele lens (which also is a bit confusing since I don't know if the IS lens is that important, and considering the high price of a good tele IS lens)
Any help would be appreciated
As far as tele goes, IS can be important, depending on what you like to shoot.
I know most about the Canon range so I will stick with that to talk about...
the 55-250mm IS, which is the 1000d/450d/500d kit telephoto lens, is decent bang-for-buck. Optically it is OK, but most other Canon teles will perform better. The IS is the lens' obvious advantage.
In the price range above this lens (say, around US$600), you'd be looking at the 70-300mm IS or 70-200 f/4 L. The first offers great focal range (an extra 100mm over the 70-200) and IS while the second offers stunning, professional-grade image quality, but no IS. It is part of the "L" range of Canon lenses (you'll see them on the sidelines of most sporting events) which means it is dustproof and semi-water proof, and of a build quality much higher than the consumer Canon lenses. The image quality is stunning, and the difference between it and the 55-250mm kit lens is noticeable.
However, you sacrifice IS. To get the same lens with IS (70-200mm f/4 L IS) you'll pay almost double (in the US, around $1100 v $650). So, it's a compromise.
As to the question of whether or not IS is necessary, it depends on what you'll be shooting. IS is nice and will absolutely assist in handheld lowlight shooting. You'll be able to take sharp photos handheld at 1/30 as opposed to 1/120; basically, in darker conditions, you will have much greater flexibility. However, you must choose whether or not the amount of times you'll be in this situation is worth getting an IS lens.
Hope that helps
PS in-lens IS is generally considered to be better than in-camera, it is more effective and less intrusive (an in-body IS system will 'vibrate' the image inside your viewfinder, which can get annoying). The obvious advantage of an in-camera IS system is that lenses will be cheaper, and any lens you buy will be image stabilised. This is a noteworthy advantage.
RikfromBelgium
Das Beste Enthusiast
ok, went to that store. He basically told me that, although the basic DSLR"s are good, very good, they're not as good as the more expensive ones obviously. If I'm willing to get more into it, I should get a but higher up range, ir I'd grow out of the camera to quickly.
So he moved on towards the D90 and D5000. Basically the D5000 offers you almost everything the D90 does, just sometimes you have to put a little more effort into it.
But considering the pricedifferce of more than €300 here, without actually losing in camera quality, I'm strongly leaning towards the D5000. Also, the tilting screen, IMO, very handy.
and to reply my earlier statement, and your ps, he also confirmed that in lens IS is better, because it can move in 3 ways, not only 2 like in-body IS can.
So he moved on towards the D90 and D5000. Basically the D5000 offers you almost everything the D90 does, just sometimes you have to put a little more effort into it.
But considering the pricedifferce of more than €300 here, without actually losing in camera quality, I'm strongly leaning towards the D5000. Also, the tilting screen, IMO, very handy.
and to reply my earlier statement, and your ps, he also confirmed that in lens IS is better, because it can move in 3 ways, not only 2 like in-body IS can.
cawimmer430
Piston Pioneer
I have asked lots of people, many professional photographers and journalists, but got no clear answer
You will never get a clear answer from them. What camera they prefer is alao part of their personal preference.
I myself like Nikon cameras a lot. I've tried some Canon cameras from my friends and I just preferred the way a Nikon felt and could be operated in my hands.
RikfromBelgium
Das Beste Enthusiast
Prety damn extensive review of the D 5000 can be found here, I'm soooo getting this, damn you exams
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/
RikfromBelgium
Das Beste Enthusiast
ok, spoke too soon. haha, always do that.
My soon to be father in law bought himself a canon eos 450D. It's cheaper than the D 5000 but ok, not as good in terms of specs ( the D 5000 I like very much because of the D90 parts)
But I'm tempted because of that price. I also know myself and I'm a very impulsive guy, affraid I might get into it for a few months and it's over. So getting a more expensive body like the D 5000 might not be smart for me. But it's a very good camera, and I like having the better equipment. So basically I can go best body with a basic lens, of "least" body but with the best lens or somewhere in between.
I'll give you 3, any opinions are much appreciated.
Nikon D 5000 AF-S 18-55mm DX-VR at €793
Canon eos 450D with a better than standard lens but it comes close to the price of the Nikon D 5000
Nikon D60 AF-S DX 18-105mm G VR for €523 ( or maybe with an even better lens)
I know the D60 isn't as advanced and it doesn't have live-view, but damn, the price is amazing.
What do you guys think?
My soon to be father in law bought himself a canon eos 450D. It's cheaper than the D 5000 but ok, not as good in terms of specs ( the D 5000 I like very much because of the D90 parts)
But I'm tempted because of that price. I also know myself and I'm a very impulsive guy, affraid I might get into it for a few months and it's over. So getting a more expensive body like the D 5000 might not be smart for me. But it's a very good camera, and I like having the better equipment. So basically I can go best body with a basic lens, of "least" body but with the best lens or somewhere in between.
I'll give you 3, any opinions are much appreciated.
Nikon D 5000 AF-S 18-55mm DX-VR at €793
Canon eos 450D with a better than standard lens but it comes close to the price of the Nikon D 5000
Nikon D60 AF-S DX 18-105mm G VR for €523 ( or maybe with an even better lens)
I know the D60 isn't as advanced and it doesn't have live-view, but damn, the price is amazing.
What do you guys think?
dOmInIX
Driving Dynamics Pro
I'd always choose better lens instead of better body. I have EOS 450D and it suits my needs great.
It depends on you, just try and hold Nikon and Canon in hands, see what suits you better. I chose Canon because they have better and cheaper lenses IMO. But I like Nikon for the build quality.
You'll be happy with anything you choose, and in the end it's not the camera that takes the photos, it's the photofrapher. Germaniac showed you some expamples what can be done with 1000D!
Good luck with your new hobby!
It depends on you, just try and hold Nikon and Canon in hands, see what suits you better. I chose Canon because they have better and cheaper lenses IMO. But I like Nikon for the build quality.
You'll be happy with anything you choose, and in the end it's not the camera that takes the photos, it's the photofrapher. Germaniac showed you some expamples what can be done with 1000D!
Good luck with your new hobby!
Zonda
Autotechnik Ace
Listen to that guy^^
I chose Canon as well because Canon's cheap bodies have easier controls than Nikon imo. For example, I always find that the ISO and focus point settings are always too far into the menus on Nikon. Also, Nikon usually offers less focus points than Canon on cheaper bodies. Nikon AF has also disappointed me every single time I have used a Nikon. This is the main reason I am so religious to Canon.
Not to mention that Nikon sometimes don't have a built in AF motor, which means that you have to buy lenses containing the AF motor. Resulting in heavier and more expensive lenses compared to equivalent Canon lenses.
Canon sensors are also top notch and will still be great for many years to come. Plus, the Canon lens and accessory range is better than Nikon's imo.
The accessory range, sensor and lenses are the reasons why a majority of all studio photographers use Canon, unless they use medium format that is.
The Nikon menu design looks great though!
I have never tried a digital Pentax, but I have heard good things about them. So don't be narrow minded and not test one!
I chose Canon as well because Canon's cheap bodies have easier controls than Nikon imo. For example, I always find that the ISO and focus point settings are always too far into the menus on Nikon. Also, Nikon usually offers less focus points than Canon on cheaper bodies. Nikon AF has also disappointed me every single time I have used a Nikon. This is the main reason I am so religious to Canon.
Not to mention that Nikon sometimes don't have a built in AF motor, which means that you have to buy lenses containing the AF motor. Resulting in heavier and more expensive lenses compared to equivalent Canon lenses.
Canon sensors are also top notch and will still be great for many years to come. Plus, the Canon lens and accessory range is better than Nikon's imo.
The accessory range, sensor and lenses are the reasons why a majority of all studio photographers use Canon, unless they use medium format that is.
The Nikon menu design looks great though!
I have never tried a digital Pentax, but I have heard good things about them. So don't be narrow minded and not test one!
Germaniac
Tarmac Traveler
I'm not aware of the feature set of the D5000, but it seems like your salesman is just pulling a standard upsell; ie, you come in wanting something, you walk out with something much more expensive with features well beyond your needs. Of course the more expensive dSLRs will have better features, but it's whether or not 1) you will use them, 2) they will significantly impact on the quality of your photos, or perhaps 3) they are just 'feelgood' features which don't really add much in terms of performance usability. As I said, the basic dSLRs are all fine cameras, and generally underrated. Going from a 1000d to a 450d, for instance, will give you some AF speed, a slightly better sensor and a bigger body, but I would much rather choose the 1000d and invest the difference in glass. Between a 1000d to 40d, however, I would most definitely choose the latter as the magnesium alloy body (and combinations of other features like faster AF, better sensor, less high-ISO noise) is well worth the extra.
Out of the three mentioned, I would choose either of the latter two. It is cliched to say choose glass over body, but it is true. What "better than standard" Canon lens are you referring to? All of these are fantastic general purpose lenses, some may be out of your price range however:
- EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
- EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L / EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS
- Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
- Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8
I would be hesitant to choose the EF-S 17-85mm IS. While the zoom range is fantastic and the IS a bonus, image quality is nowhere near on par with any of the above. I own the 17-50 Tamron and while it is let down by its slow and noisy autofocus, image quality (and the beautiful fixed f/2.8) is fantastic.
Another option, as I said earlier, is an 'all purpose' lens like the EF-S 18-200mm. Enviable zoom range.
Happy hunting!
adeel2010
Turbo Tüftler
I'm about to buy a DSLR also and have no idea about anything about them...
so is this a good camera for my use (amateur car photography...):
Nikon - D3100 14.2-Megapixel Digital SLR Camera - Black - D3100 Kit with 18-55mm VR Lens
is it a good deal?
so is this a good camera for my use (amateur car photography...):
Nikon - D3100 14.2-Megapixel Digital SLR Camera - Black - D3100 Kit with 18-55mm VR Lens
is it a good deal?
