Boggled...

I'm trying to wrap my head around some things and hopefully someone can offer me some clarity. I'm in the market for a DSLR, or, at least I thought I was in the market for one! What I think I'm looking for is an entry level dslr and a couple of lenses to take outdoor action shots of my dogs in varying lighting conditions. I've received all kinds of advice, some of which is conflicting. After much research, I narrowed down the search to the D50 with the 18-70mm and 70-300mm VR (this being the top of my budget for this year). I've had a number of people tell me that these lenses will not be sufficient for what I'm looking to shoot. What is sufficient is beyond my reach financially.

So, what I find confusing is that my trusty 'ol Konica Minolta Dimage Z1, 3MP, 10x zoom camera is capable of taking really nice action shots in good light. In fact, this past weekend I took pictures of my black dog, with snow on the ground and overcast. snowy skies, and got some decent action shots. So, if my old and obsolete p&s can do it then why wouldn't a D50 with the above lenses produce crisp action shots??? For that matter, why wouldn't the D50 with less expensive lenses not out perform my p&s?

Is there an affordable solution to this problem? What can I do to ensure that I do not spend thousands of dollars and not be able to get the clear action shots I'm looking for? Should I be looking for a better p&s?

You appear to be happy with your existing DSLR. It may be worth getting a good P&S, like the Canon G7 or Panasonic LX-2.

My p&s...for what it is, it has been terrific! Great intro to digital photography but after 3 years of use I'm looking for more. I want a higher ratio of "keepers", I want more clarity and crispness, better lower light performance, want to play with the settings more, etc.

If I could find a p&s that would do what I want it to then I would consider it. But...I would so love to move forward and grow into photography a bit. I just find it difficult to justify the cost, hence my quest for affordable gear that will help me shoot what I want to shoot!

Really, there must be an affordable solution for me, yes?????

OK... but you do realise you've already got the most important equipment for photographing dogs? The understanding of how they work and what they're likely to do. You're already off to a better start than most people and I should imagine you'd make a good effort with just about any camera.

Take a look at my "Angel" gallery at PBase (link below) where I've used P&S Canon s400, bridge K-M D7i and DSLR K-M 5D and even a Phone Cam. I think there is a time to use each type of camera.
So what do I think you need?
For this: A P&S



For this: A bridge camera set on high speed burst.



For this: a DSLR



Ideally get a DSLR with anti-shake built into the body and that will mean Pentax or Sony at present. You can use good quality Tamron lenses if the maker's own are stretching the budget. BUT, if you want to commericialise your dog pictures (take plenty and sell them seriously with a camera built to last) then it ought to be a Canon or Nikon DSLR with an image stablised lens.

If you don't need wide angle but do need Image Stablilisation in a bridge camera with a long zoom then maybe get the Canon s3IS or a Panasonic.

If you download one of the better noise handling programs, and maybe also the Focus Magic plug in, the chances are that no-one but a pixel peeper will know you haven't used one of the APS frame DSLRs.
--
John.
Please visit me at:
http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/digital_dartmoor

I'm not sure what you budget is, but you could put togetehr a nice used set at KEH:

Canon Rebel or XT from $300 to $600

80-200 F2.8 L (Bargain Grade) $599 (I've bought their bargain stuff and it was in great shape)

50 F1.8 $ 60

24 F2.8 $265

So between $1200 to $1500 you could put together a nice setup. I have the 80-200L, a Tokina 28 - 70 f2.8, and the 50 lens and am quite happy using it to shoot sports outside. I suggetsted teh 24 for a wide angle prime that has a good rep since I could not find teh Tokina used on KEH.

KEH has a good rep; I've been very happy with everything I've bought.

I don'y use a Nikon so I can't comment on it other than to say Nikon user's I've met are very happy with their gear.

jim

Ah, I see you have a grey! I have a whippet And two very lovely Staffords.

I'd be happy to post some examples of what I like to shoot if someone would be so kinda as to tell me how!

And thanks for all the advice so far...please keep it coming!!!

To post a pic with the message text here, first it has to be on a web site.
Then you copy and paste the url and add .jpg at the end to embed.
--

John.
Please visit me at:
http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/digital_dartmoor
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18726664@N00/

OK...hopefully this works...

First one was taken under really poor conditions...overcast sky and snowing. Had to deal with the whole black dog/white snow thing as well. The rest were all taken under good, sunny conditions.













I apologize in advance if I've posted too many!!!!! I'm looking to continue taking photos like these only better!!! Would like to have more control over the DOF as well.

I'd really appreciate some comments on these pics from people who know what they're doing

Kim

The D50 is a great low-light camera. If you settle on a VR lens, you've got the anti-shake part taken care of. The Pentax K10D has image stabilization built-in to the camera like the Sony so there is no need to pony up for expensive VR lenses like you would with a Nikon.

I really like these photos you've posted. Those pit bull shots are nice - a nice big head on that guy, a really good-looking dog. Pity how maligned the breed is due bad breeding and raising by some people. Your shots are nice, very nice and I'd sure love to see what you could do with a DSLR.
--
My humble photo gallery: http://ntotrr.smugmug.com

Thanks, Peter The photos of my dogs mean so much to me, I can't even begin to describe...

The camera doesn't necessarily have to be a nikon...that's just what I've researched thus far. It just has to work ~ I'm not at all into spending big bucks and getting softly focused or blurry pictures. I have friends who are in that boat and I want to avoid that at all costs.

I do have a budget...would prefer not spending more than $1500 Canadian this year though I realize that budget is limiting.

Would either of these cameras be capable of action shots like the ones I posted further down in this thread?

"The Pentax K10D has image stabilization built-in to the camera like the Sony so there is no need to pony up for expensive VR lenses like you would with a Nikon."

What lenses would you recommend based on my pics?

Kim

Jim Coffey wrote:
Canon Rebel or XT from $300 to $600
80-200 F2.8 L (Bargain Grade) $599 (I've bought their bargain
stuff and it was in great shape)

50 F1.8 $ 60

24 F2.8 $265

I would LOVE an 80-200 f2.8...are they hard to find used???

Regarding the primes...how would I use them effectively when shooting dogs? I would suspect the shot would be somewhat difficult to compose without the zoom??? Dogs don't hold their stationary positions for long...

The D50 with those lenses you are considering will certainly outshoot the P&S you have now.

KimnGus said:

I'm trying to wrap my head around some things and hopefully someone
can offer me some clarity. I'm in the market for a DSLR, or, at
least I thought I was in the market for one! What I think I'm
looking for is an entry level dslr and a couple of lenses to take
outdoor action shots of my dogs in varying lighting conditions.
I've received all kinds of advice, some of which is conflicting.
After much research, I narrowed down the search to the D50 with the
18-70mm and 70-300mm VR (this being the top of my budget for this
year). I've had a number of people tell me that these lenses will
not be sufficient for what I'm looking to shoot. What is
sufficient is beyond my reach financially.

So, what I find confusing is that my trusty 'ol Konica Minolta
Dimage Z1, 3MP, 10x zoom camera is capable of taking really nice
action shots in good light. In fact, this past weekend I took
pictures of my black dog, with snow on the ground and overcast.
snowy skies, and got some decent action shots. So, if my old and
obsolete p&s can do it then why wouldn't a D50 with the above
lenses produce crisp action shots??? For that matter, why wouldn't
the D50 with less expensive lenses not out perform my p&s?

Is there an affordable solution to this problem? What can I do to
ensure that I do not spend thousands of dollars and not be able to
get the clear action shots I'm looking for? Should I be looking
for a better p&s?

Click to expand...

I like those dog shots you posted, especially the Whippet.

Any DSLR is capable of taking good action shots thanks to a usually shorter picture-taking lag and the potential to use lenses with better resolution and light gathering power than your P&S may posess.

Frankly there is a lot of rubbish talked about resolution and sensors because even on 35mm film, resolution is limited to say 5 microns. Probably of much more importance to people who enjoy taking photos is the Bokeh (the quality of the out of focus background area which needs to look pleasant if the shot is to look professional.)

You also need to make sure the camera you choose handles digital noise (= grain, or poor signal to noise ratio) relatively well if you mean to attach a cheapo lens with higher (darker) minimum aperture. It will force you to use higher ISO to catch the action at telephoto distances. This is why the anti-shake is a good idea.

You can search by camera (and lens) on PBase.com to check out images that people have been taking with various models. But beware, getting seriously into DSLRs and lenses will quickly make a hole in your finances.

--
John.
Please visit me at:
http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/digital_dartmoor
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18726664@N00/

KimnGus said:

I would LOVE an 80-200 f2.8...are they hard to find used???

Click to expand...

They call this guy the "magic drainpipe"

I haven't tried to track one down, but they're highly coveted by people on this forum.

(actually, it seems that the L version of this lens is the magic grainpipe. no clue as to whether there were 2 versions, BUt there's one on eBay right now: http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-80-200-f2-8-USM-Lens-EF-w-Hard-Case_W0QQitemZ220076737760QQihZ012QQcategoryZ48552QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem )

KimnGus said:

Regarding the primes...how would I use them effectively when
shooting dogs? I would suspect the shot would be somewhat
difficult to compose without the zoom??? Dogs don't hold their
stationary positions for long...

Click to expand...

To be honest, I have better luck with a p-s with my dog. She moves around too much for me to effectively frame her while looking down a barrel (that and I'm the only person she listens to, so nobody else can pose her). The LCD on the back is the only way I can get good shots of her.

I probably just need practice. You might do better, having had more dog shooting experience. I'd suggest renting a dslr and seeing how the shots turn out for you (or just borrow a film camera and fart around with it. even without film, you can see how it feels and responds).

Good luck!

KimnGus said:

Jim Coffey said:

Canon Rebel or XT from $300 to $600
80-200 F2.8 L (Bargain Grade) $599 (I've bought their bargain
stuff and it was in great shape)

50 F1.8 $ 60

24 F2.8 $265

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

KimnGus said:

I would LOVE an 80-200 f2.8...are they hard to find used???

Click to expand...

KEH seems to have them in stock quite a bit, from $600 on up depending on the condition. http://www.keh.com

KimnGus said:

Regarding the primes...how would I use them effectively when
shooting dogs? I would suspect the shot would be somewhat
difficult to compose without the zoom??? Dogs don't hold their
stationary positions for long...

Click to expand...

It really depends what you want to do and how close you can get to the subject. The wide angle gives you the opportunity to shoot multiple dogs or one dog with a lot of scenery (such as a running along the beach shot); if you can move in you can zoom with your feet as needed. The 50 is just a really good lens that will cover the range between the wide and bottom end of the zoom; giving you more flexibility. It is good for owner with dog shots (as is the 24, having two lets you adjust, by changing position relative to the subject, the perspective). The primes also give you faster lens that will be more useful if you shot indoors.

I like primes because of their image quality and the affordability of fast lens; quality fast zooms get expensive quickly. As long as you can zoom with your feet I've never found the fixed nature of a prime an issue.

Since i didn't know your budget I tried to put together a combo that was reasonably priced and had enough flrxibility to meet what I perceived as your needs. The L zoom gives you reach and image quality; the primes the field of view when you need it. In addition, good quality prime shots can be croped a bit anyway to digitally zoom if needed.

There certainly are nice zooms that could cover the low end, but (IMHO) to get the same image quality you'l spend nearly $500 to $600 more for say a 28-70 F2.8 L. I have a Tokina that covers the same range, produces good images, and was a lot less; but it is hard to find so recommending it would not be of much help.

Another approach is to see what you typically shot now at the low end and see what lens would be needed to cover most of your shots. I find I use teh 80-200 90% of teh time outdors; but I shot mostly team sports. If I am walking around I either go with the 50 or my Tokina. Personally, my next lens will be a 15 or so.

In the end, you trade off flexibility for cost or image quality. The most important thing is you like the results and are not frustrated while shooting because you really wish you had an xx instead of yy mm lens.

Enjoy,

Jim

Jim Coffey wrote:
"It really depends what you want to do and how close you can get to
the subject."

"Another approach is to see what you typically shot now at the low
end and see what lens would be needed to cover most of your shots."

Getting close to them isn't a problem...they are very used to me crouching in their faces with the camera and aren't distracted by it

With regard to the focal lengths I most commonly shoot within...hmmm...not sure I can answer that! It depends entirely upon what the dogs are "giving me". If they are at distance then I zoom all the way in. With two of my dogs I'm pretty much constantly adjusting the lens. With the black staffie...I normally work at much closer distances to him. What those focal lengths are I don't know???

This has been a bit of a problem when searching for lenses because I have no real frame of reference and am not sure what range would be best suited to me...

Kim

Joe0Bloggs said:

The D50 with those lenses you are considering will certainly
outshoot the P&S you have now.

Click to expand...

So, what if I went with a 2 lens package...the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200. Are you saying that my action shots will be consistently better than the photos taken with my p&s that I've already posted?

Kim

Unless you get a faulty camera or lens, yes definitely.

KimnGus said:

Joe0Bloggs said:

The D50 with those lenses you are considering will certainly
outshoot the P&S you have now.

Click to expand...

So, what if I went with a 2 lens package...the 18-55 kit lens and
the 55-200. Are you saying that my action shots will be
consistently better than the photos taken with my p&s that I've
already posted?

Kim

Click to expand...