which DSLR camera should i buy?

simsi · Sep 27, 2008

Dear all,

I am new to this Forum but I've been reading a lot in the reviews on this page, and it is simply great!

I would like to buy a DSLR camera. Right now i have a Canon S3 IS point-and-shoot. However, I simply start to feel that it is not enough, I have exploited almost all it can give.

So the question is, which DSLR camera would you suggest to a newbie?

My price range with a zoom lens that can offer wide angle but also large zoom should be around

I would like to make good shots in low light (high ISO with low noise, cause my current camera is a bit noisy), i absolutely want image stablization, and i would like an image sensor large enough to create a shallow depth of field (ok well i think DSLRs have large sensors in general).

I have had a look around. For example several models seem interesting:

Pentax K20D
Canon Digital Rebel XSi
Canon D40

and I havent really had a look for Nikon ones, maybe you can help me out with some suggestion?

I have also found the Canon XSi kit with a zoom lens and other things included ( http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-18-55mm-70-300mm-Battery/dp/B0018AD4HM/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1222548852&sr=1-9 and http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-18-55mm-75-300mm-Accessory/dp/B0018AGFO6/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1222548852&sr=1-5 ).
Would you suggest such a kit? Do these lenses have image stablization?

One question i am generally thinking about is: is the image stablization in the lens or in the camera?

Thank you for all your help!
Simone

baloo_buc · Sep 27, 2008

As you have some decent budget I would suggest you Nikon D90 body and the Nikkor 16-85 mm VR plus the Nikkor 70-300 mm VR.
You will get a range of 24-128 mm and 105-450 mm with two excellent lenses.

If low light is a topic then I would suggest also looking at Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 or Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4 (now it's available the AF-D version but soon it will be available the AF-S version).
The telephoto lens you could buy later to see if 85 mm it's too limiting.
--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/
http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/

theatrus · Sep 27, 2008

simsi said:
I have had a look around. For example several models seem interesting:

Pentax K20D

Not a bad camera all around. Smaller system and user base, but high quality construction.

simsi said:
Canon Digital Rebel XSi

Great starter camera. Cheaper construction than the 40D at no real image quality difference.

simsi said:
Canon D40

You mean 40D (D40 is a Nikon - confusing isn't it?). High quality magnesium alloy frame, bulkier than the XSi, but more robust. Slightly improved all around (autofocus, speed, etc). If you're looking to keep on growing in photography, it has better resale value and longevity. Bonus points are good sales right now due to the 50D introduction.

simsi said:
I have also found the Canon XSi kit with a zoom lens and other things
included

( http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-18-55mm-70-300mm-Battery/dp/B0018AD4HM/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1222548852&sr=1-9 and http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-18-55mm-75-300mm-Accessory/dp/B0018AGFO6/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1222548852&sr=1-5 ).
Would you suggest such a kit? Do these lenses have image stablization?

I'd recommend the 18-55 IS kit lens plus the 55-250 IS lens rather than the 75-300. I'd advise buying from Amazon.com proper (not through a seller like the one you linked), or through B&H Photo Vide.

simsi said:
One question i am generally thinking about is: is the image
stablization in the lens or in the camera?

Depends on the system. Canon and Nikon have it in the lens, Sony, Pentax, Olympus put it in the camera. For normal range lenses, its has roughly the same effectiveness. Nikon and Canon make the majority of their consumer lenses with IS these days, so not much decision needs to be made.

simsi said:
Thank you for all your help!
Simone

simsi · Sep 27, 2008

Hello,

thank you very much for your quick answer!

I guess you're talking about this solution: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-18-105mm-70-300mm-Accessory/dp/B001FOK1EK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1222551147&sr=8-8

That looks very interesting. What is exactly AF-D and AF-S?

Let's say I would go for a cheaper solution - what is the real difference in quality? Do I notice it as a relative newbie?

Basically I am deciding between an entry-level camera such as the Canon XSi and a more professional one such as the above Nikon 90D.

Is there a big difference in quality, or in short terms, what do i lose? I also saw that the weight of the XSi is quite low, which if other factors are not so limiting might be quite attractive.

Thank you once again!!

Simone

KALEL33 · Sep 27, 2008

simsi said:
Hello,

thank you very much for your quick answer!
I guess you're talking about this solution:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-18-105mm-70-300mm-Accessory/dp/B001FOK1EK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1222551147&sr=8-8

That looks very interesting. What is exactly AF-D and AF-S?

You'd have the range, but the 70-300 there doesn't have VR(which would be a deal breaker with a telephoto lens).

I'd really look hard at the XSi with the kit lens, add the 55-250mm IS lens, and then buy the 50mm F1.4. Nobody discussed that the recommendations would not do well in low light, and that's why you need a fast prime for indoors/low light.

simsi · Sep 27, 2008

Dear theatrus,

thanks so much for your quick answer. This forum is really great!

theatrus said:
theatrus said:

Canon Digital Rebel XSi

Click to expand...

Great starter camera. Cheaper construction than the 40D at no real
image quality difference.

theatrus said:

Canon D40

Click to expand...

You mean 40D (D40 is a Nikon - confusing isn't it?). High quality
magnesium alloy frame, bulkier than the XSi, but more robust.
Slightly improved all around (autofocus, speed, etc). If you're
looking to keep on growing in photography, it has better resale value
and longevity. Bonus points are good sales right now due to the 50D
introduction.

OK - from this I conclude that the image quality is very similar. I dont need extreme robustness, even a bit lighter weight is preferrable if I don't lose to much quality. How is the noise performance in comparison?

What about Pentax cameras in general? I heard something like that they are slightly cheaper than a comparable model of Canon or Nikon at similar image quality. Is that right?

theatrus said:
theatrus said:

I have also found the Canon XSi kit with a zoom lens and other things
included

( http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-18-55mm-70-300mm-Battery/dp/B0018AD4HM/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1222548852&sr=1-9 and http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-18-55mm-75-300mm-Accessory/dp/B0018AGFO6/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1222548852&sr=1-5 ).
Would you suggest such a kit? Do these lenses have image stablization?

Click to expand...

I'd recommend the 18-55 IS kit lens plus the 55-250 IS lens rather
than the 75-300. I'd advise buying from Amazon.com proper (not
through a seller like the one you linked), or through B&H Photo Vide.

Why do you say that? Are such sellers bad, e.g. in terms of warranty, etc.?
I am in Canada, so I might not be very happy with US warranty...

theatrus said:
theatrus said:

One question i am generally thinking about is: is the image
stablization in the lens or in the camera?

Click to expand...

Depends on the system. Canon and Nikon have it in the lens, Sony,
Pentax, Olympus put it in the camera. For normal range lenses, its
has roughly the same effectiveness. Nikon and Canon make the majority
of their consumer lenses with IS these days, so not much decision
needs to be made.

The only question i have here is: if i use one of the other companies' lenses, such as Tamron, Sigma,.... they probably do not have IS in their lens, right? So somehow after all it makes a difference.

Thank you once again!!!
Simone

simsi · Sep 27, 2008

KALEL33 said:
You'd have the range, but the 70-300 there doesn't have VR(which
would be a deal breaker with a telephoto lens).

OK - just...what is VR? sorry for this I am a bit of a newbie and I couldnt find it in the glossary ;-)).

KALEL33 said:
I'd really look hard at the XSi with the kit lens, add the 55-250mm
IS lens, and then buy the 50mm F1.4. Nobody discussed that the
recommendations would not do well in low light, and that's why you
need a fast prime for indoors/low light.

That sounds good. I will think about it.

theatrus · Sep 27, 2008

simsi said:
OK - from this I conclude that the image quality is very similar. I
dont need extreme robustness, even a bit lighter weight is
preferrable if I don't lose to much quality. How is the noise
performance in comparison?

The 40D is going to have a slight edge in noise due to its less dense sensor.

simsi said:
What about Pentax cameras in general? I heard something like that
they are slightly cheaper than a comparable model of Canon or Nikon
at similar image quality. Is that right?

I really haven't used Pentax myself, so I can't comment. They are not as aggressive in new features or the megapixel race.

simsi said:
The only question i have here is: if i use one of the other
companies' lenses, such as Tamron, Sigma,.... they probably do not
have IS in their lens, right? So somehow after all it makes a
difference.

Stabilization is great, but it does have a limited usefulness in many cases. Many Tamron and Sigma lenses are getting stabilized if that affects your decision in any way.

If you're looking for true low light performance, there is no substitute for fast lenses. Remember IS/AS/VR does not stop motion, only your own control of the camera.

If the decision came down to stabilized with every lens (most of which you won't buy) vs better image quality and other features, go for the other features.

theatrus · Sep 27, 2008

simsi said:
OK - just...what is VR? sorry for this I am a bit of a newbie and I
couldnt find it in the glossary ;-)).

Nikon's in lens IS, called Vibration Reduction (a good name for it).

simsi said:
simsi said:

I'd really look hard at the XSi with the kit lens, add the 55-250mm
IS lens, and then buy the 50mm F1.4. Nobody discussed that the
recommendations would not do well in low light, and that's why you
need a fast prime for indoors/low light.

Click to expand...

That sounds good. I will think about it.

I second this recommendation.

baloo_buc · Sep 27, 2008

I was not talking about the Nikon D90 kit. You just take the body.

Nikon D90 is still an entry level camera but closer to Canon 40D and 50D than toCanon 450D (or XSi).

Nikon and Canon have intertwining classes so it's a little confusing. Here are the classes:

Entry level:
1. Nikon D40, Nikon D60
2. Canon 1000D, Canon 400D
3. Canon 450D
4. Nikon D80, Nikon D90

Semi-professional
1. Canon 40D, Canon 50D
2. Nikon D300
3. Nikon D700, Canon 5D, Canon 5D MkII

Professional
1. Nikon D3
2. Canon 1Ds mkIII

In each class the higher the number the better (so Nikon D90 is better than Canon 450D both featurewise and specificationwise). What you have with Nikon D90 is a bigger and brighter VF, 2 dials (for aperture and shutter speed), a top LCD, a much better grip.

About lens:

Nikkor 16-85 mm VR is one of the best consumer lens of Nikon. Nikkor 18-105 mm VR is the kit lens that comes with Nikon D90. It's a new lens so I cannot tell you if it's about the same quality of 16-85 mm VR or not.

AF-S have AF motor in the lens and AF-D has not. Both types will AF on D90. Nikkor AF-S 50 mm f/1.4 will be available in December while Nikkor AF-D 50 mm f/1.4 is a quite old lens. You need this type of lens for low light. Sigma has 30 mm thus a 45 mm equivalent and is more versatile. Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4 has an equivalent of 75 mm so it can be successfully used as a portrait lens.

Canon have a good collection of lens but the consumer grade are quite poor performers and quite expensive. The L grade is extremely good but also extremely expensive.

If you compare Canon 17-85 mm IS lens with Nikkor 16-85 mm VR you'll see that at about the same price Nikkor is better.

Pentax 20D is a good camera. Very well built. My experience with Pentax lenses was quite short and limited but the kit lens had serious vignetting and was quite noisy and slow focusing.
--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/
http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/

KALEL33 · Sep 27, 2008

baloo_buc said:
In each class the higher the number the better (so Nikon D90 is
better than Canon 450D both featurewise and specificationwise). What
you have with Nikon D90 is a bigger and brighter VF, 2 dials (for
aperture and shutter speed), a top LCD, a much better grip.

And, the 450D will do better in higher ISOs.

baloo_buc said:
Canon have a good collection of lens but the consumer grade are quite
poor performers and quite expensive. The L grade is extremely good
but also extremely expensive.

The 55-250 and 18-55 are rated very highly everywhere. Look at the reviews here. Where did you get the info of the bad performance(link)? They're not expensive, the 55-250mm IS is only $280. L lens not anymore expensive than the Nikkor lens.

baloo_buc said:
If you compare Canon 17-85 mm IS lens with Nikkor 16-85 mm VR you'll
see that at about the same price Nikkor is better.

How will you see which one is better. Do you have a website to link to a comparative review of each? Also, the 16-85mm costs 20% more than the 17-85mm of Canon.

With your suggestions, the OP would have $100 left over to buy a memory card and have no money for, if he wants, a flash, tripod, good photo editing program, and no prime lens to shoot indoors. My suggestion would leave him with $700 left over to buy things that he didn't think of before.

mrxdimension · Sep 27, 2008

theatrus said:
theatrus said:

What about Pentax cameras in general? I heard something like that
they are slightly cheaper than a comparable model of Canon or Nikon
at similar image quality. Is that right?

Click to expand...

I really haven't used Pentax myself, so I can't comment. They are not
as aggressive in new features or the megapixel race.

I've got a couple of Pentax's. Your assertions are incorrect. As with any camera's the price depends on where you live and when you buy. In general I think Pentax offers competitive equipment at lower prices for some segments of the market. Pentax equipment is geared toward enthusiasts, not pro's. You won't see high frame rates or super fast autofocus in room lit by candle light. If you're not shooting pro sports indoors or young children running around in dimly lit rooms you can get good quality gear at a competitive price along with features Canon and Nikon typically put on more expensive bodies.

As far as the megapixel race it's a double edged sword. Pentax was the first APS-C sized digital camera with a 14+ MP sensor, everyone else had 10MP's then some brought out 12MP's. On the other hand the Samsung 14MP sensor Pentax uses in the K20d is clean at 1600 and usable at 3200 ISO. It's about as good as the 6MP Sony sensor's used int he K100d and Nikon D40 at 1600 ISO.

You should decide what features you need. Read the reviews on this site. But don't yet make up your mind. Handle the camera's. Some may be too light, too heavy, buttons and controls placed in the wrong spots for your fingers. Handling matters. All of the name brands make a camera good enough for a beginner and an enthusiast. Spend the minimum you can on the body to get the features you need , invest in the lens(es). If you buy good lenses you'll keep them when you trade your body in for a new model.

Here's the links to the Pentax K20d, K200d, and the preview of the newly announced K-m.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Pentax/pentax_k20d.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Pentax/pentax_k200d.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Pentax/pentax_km.asp

baloo_buc · Sep 27, 2008

KALEL33 said:
baloo_buc said:

In each class the higher the number the better (so Nikon D90 is
better than Canon 450D both featurewise and specificationwise). What
you have with Nikon D90 is a bigger and brighter VF, 2 dials (for
aperture and shutter speed), a top LCD, a much better grip.

Click to expand...

And, the 450D will do better in higher ISOs.

I doubt it. Nikon D70 was not a good high ISO performer. The same for Nikon D80. Nikon D90 seems to be as good as Nikon D300 that was better than Canon 450D and Canon 40D for high ISO.

KALEL33 said:
KALEL33 said:

Canon have a good collection of lens but the consumer grade are quite
poor performers and quite expensive. The L grade is extremely good
but also extremely expensive.

Click to expand...

The 55-250 and 18-55 are rated very highly everywhere. Look at the
reviews here. Where did you get the info of the bad
performance(link)? They're not expensive, the 55-250mm IS is only
$280. L lens not anymore expensive than the Nikkor lens.

You can put in the same balance Nikkor 18-55 mm VR with Canon 18-55 mm IS and Nikkor wins because of just one detail: it costs about 25% less (442 lei Nikkor and 594 lei Canon). In the same balance it would be Canon 55-250 mm IS with Nikkor 55-200 mm VR. Canon 55-250 mm IS the price is 1099 lei while for Nikkor 55-200 mm VR is 599 lei (i.e. 45% less). The Nikkor lens is very good as well as the Canon that just offers more reach.

KALEL33 said:
KALEL33 said:

If you compare Canon 17-85 mm IS lens with Nikkor 16-85 mm VR you'll
see that at about the same price Nikkor is better.

Click to expand...

How will you see which one is better. Do you have a website to link
to a comparative review of each? Also, the 16-85mm costs 20% more
than the 17-85mm of Canon.

It seems that you are very fond of Canon. It deserves because it makes good lenses. The Canon 17-85 mm IS has a price of 1832 lei and the Nikkor 16-85 mm VR has the price of 1993 lei (so 8% more).
You can see the reviews of these two lenses:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/179-canon-ef-s-17-85mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review

KALEL33 said:
With your suggestions, the OP would have $100 left over to buy a
memory card and have no money for, if he wants, a flash, tripod, good
photo editing program, and no prime lens to shoot indoors. My
suggestion would leave him with $700 left over to buy things that he
didn't think of before.

I agree that with Canon 450D and the cheaper kit (18-55 mm IS and 55-250 mm IS) will get good results.

But I proposed him Nikon D90 and Nikkor 16-85 mm plus Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4 or Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 that offers better quality. Telephoto he should take only if he feels restricted by the 85 mm.

Let's make some calculations (all in Romanian prices that are higher than the US prices)
Canon 450D kit = 2449 lei
Canon 55-250 mm IS = 1099 lei
Total = 3548 lei

Nikon D90 body = 2899 lei
Nikkor 18-55 mm VR = 442 lei
Nikkor 55-200 mm VR = 599 lei
Total = 3940 lei

What I proposed him was
Nikon D90 body = 2899 lei
Nikkor 16-85 mm VR = 1993 lei
Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4 = 903 lei
Total = 5795 lei

Canon 450D body = 2163 lei
Canon 17-85 mm IS = 1832 lei
Canon 50 mm f/1.4 = 1264 lei
Total = 5259 lei

So Nikon will be more expensive in both cases (11% in the first case and 10% in the second). In the second case Nikon offers better quality.

The difference is that Canon 450D was launched in January and Nikon D90 in August and the later has a premium price right now. What Nikon offers for the higher price is the video (not essential but it's a nice feature to have).
FYI 1 $ = 2.5 lei and 1 € = 3.7 lei
--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/
http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/

KALEL33 · Sep 27, 2008

baloo_buc said:
I doubt it. Nikon D70 was not a good high ISO performer. The same for
Nikon D80. Nikon D90 seems to be as good as Nikon D300 that was
better than Canon 450D and Canon 40D for high ISO.

Look at the samples on the review of the D300, the samples were grainier in the D300 shots compared to the 40D.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page30.asp
80. L lens not anymore expensive than the Nikkor lens.

baloo_buc said:
It seems that you are very fond of Canon. It deserves because it
makes good lenses. The Canon 17-85 mm IS has a price of 1832 lei and
the Nikkor 16-85 mm VR has the price of 1993 lei (so 8% more).
You can see the reviews of these two lenses:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/179-canon-ef-s-17-85mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review

Don't get me wrong, I like Canon, but some people put out information that is not completely correct. I love what Nikon has done and Canon has lost market share because of it. They are pretty much on the same level in most regards. Thanks for the reviews, but it'd be better to compare them to each other. Also, the OP and I deal with USD and thus, gave the percentage differences based on what "he" would spend....not if he decided to fly to Romania just to buy equipment. I am very fond of Nikon, but for this decision the D90 is just not the right choice.

baloo_buc said:
I agree that with Canon 450D and the cheaper kit (18-55 mm IS and
55-250 mm IS) will get good results.
But I proposed him Nikon D90 and Nikkor 16-85 mm plus Nikkor 50 mm
f/1.4 or Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 that offers better quality. Telephoto he
should take only if he feels restricted by the 85 mm.

The OP wanted a focal range close to his S3IS which you would need a telephoto for. That means he would not get what he was asking for. You can fill some of his needs with the D90, but the price will not be sufficient for all of them.

baloo_buc said:
So Nikon will be more expensive in both cases (11% in the first case
and 10% in the second). In the second case Nikon offers better
quality.

Again, if the OP would fly to Romania to buy then there would be a closer match, but here in the U.S. that's just not a good choice. The price differences between the two, with comparable lens, would be far more than 10%. Also, the video looks very nice, but it's not nice to have if you ever use it. I had a camcorder and used it 5 times...biggest waste of money I've done in a long time.

1eyedjack · Sep 27, 2008

You might want to look at a Sony A700, built in Stabilizer,
which makes lenses cheaper when you add on. A good IQ, low light
Camera..

theatrus · Sep 27, 2008

1eyedjack said:
You might want to look at a Sony A700, built in Stabilizer,
which makes lenses cheaper when you add on. A good IQ, low light
Camera..

Except it really doesn't.

Example: Sony 70-200 f/2.8 = $1800 (Amazon.com)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Image Stabilized = $1700 (Amazon.com)

This is just an example of two high quality lenses, one which is stabilized and one which depends on the camera being stabilized. I'm sure you can find examples where a Sony or old Minolta lens is cheaper, but I'm just pointing out IS does not usually equal more money.

--
Warning: The internet is filled with one sided views. Stay objective.

mrxdimension · Sep 27, 2008

theatrus said:
1eyedjack said:

You might want to look at a Sony A700, built in Stabilizer,
which makes lenses cheaper when you add on. A good IQ, low light
Camera..

Click to expand...

Except it really doesn't.

Example: Sony 70-200 f/2.8 = $1800 (Amazon.com)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Image Stabilized = $1700 (Amazon.com)

This is just an example of two high quality lenses, one which is
stabilized and one which depends on the camera being stabilized. I'm
sure you can find examples where a Sony or old Minolta lens is
cheaper, but I'm just pointing out IS does not usually equal more
money.

--
Warning: The internet is filled with one sided views. Stay objective.

I like your sig.

You may be correct that in-lens stabilization in this case works out in Canon's favor. On the other hand I think Sony lenses are overpriced. Compare Oly and Pentax lenses and the outcome may be different depending on particulars. For instance if you want a short prime lens that's stabilized you'll have to go with an in-body stabilized system.

My point is your argument about comparing Canon and Sony with stabilization of some sort is flawed because you chose to compare to Sony lenses which are overpriced. I would count Sony out for this reason alone. In-body vs in-lens stabilization is a different argument and your point is not proven in general.

StorrsCT · Sep 27, 2008

KALEL33 said:
simsi said:

Hello,

thank you very much for your quick answer!
I guess you're talking about this solution:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-18-105mm-70-300mm-Accessory/dp/B001FOK1EK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1222551147&sr=8-8

That looks very interesting. What is exactly AF-D and AF-S?

Click to expand...

You'd have the range, but the 70-300 there doesn't have VR(which
would be a deal breaker with a telephoto lens).

I'd really look hard at the XSi with the kit lens, add the 55-250mm
IS lens, and then buy the 50mm F1.4. Nobody discussed that the
recommendations would not do well in low light, and that's why you
need a fast prime for indoors/low light.

I owned the XSI with the kit 18-55 IS and the 55-250mm IS. I took approximately 4,000-5,000 shots with it, and then sold it. I was very pleased with the sensor of the XSI, but found the focusing to have issues, and the lenses to be marginal at best.

I tried out a friend's Nikon D80 with the 18-135 lens, and thought it to be a much better constructed set. I would expect that the D90 is only an improvement, and that I would prefer it to the Canon entry level items.

It's of course preference, and the XSI is certainly capable of great shots.

If I did it over, I would have gone with the Nikon 18-200 VR lens, and any of their bodies. Add a fast prime lens for low light portraits, and you've got a small, cost effective setup, that you can count on for almost any need aside from extreme zoom ranges or long range shooting of sports.

I'd think an XSI with high quality glass would be equally as good, or better than, the Nikon entry levels, but that costs a lot of cash.

I hope that helps.

StorrsCT · Sep 27, 2008

mrxdimension said:
theatrus said:

1eyedjack said:

You might want to look at a Sony A700, built in Stabilizer,
which makes lenses cheaper when you add on. A good IQ, low light
Camera..

Click to expand...

Except it really doesn't.

Example: Sony 70-200 f/2.8 = $1800 (Amazon.com)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Image Stabilized = $1700 (Amazon.com)

This is just an example of two high quality lenses, one which is
stabilized and one which depends on the camera being stabilized. I'm
sure you can find examples where a Sony or old Minolta lens is
cheaper, but I'm just pointing out IS does not usually equal more
money.

--
Warning: The internet is filled with one sided views. Stay objective.

Click to expand...

I like your sig.

You may be correct that in-lens stabilization in this case works out
in Canon's favor. On the other hand I think Sony lenses are
overpriced. Compare Oly and Pentax lenses and the outcome may be
different depending on particulars. For instance if you want a short
prime lens that's stabilized you'll have to go with an in-body
stabilized system.

My point is your argument about comparing Canon and Sony with
stabilization of some sort is flawed because you chose to compare to
Sony lenses which are overpriced. I would count Sony out for this
reason alone. In-body vs in-lens stabilization is a different
argument and your point is not proven in general.

IS equipped lenses often cost more than non-IS lenses of the same IQ, within a particular brand. A Canon made IS will tend to cost more than a Canon made non-IS, given everything else about the lens is similar. Of course there are cheap IS lenses, and expensive IS lenses, so it doesn't mean that ALL stabilized lenses are a fortune.

There's not much more to say about that subject than that.

bob elkind · Sep 27, 2008

Unless you're buying something used, I would stick to Canon or Nikon. They are both safe picks, with lots of growth potential as you get more serious about photography.

I'm a Nikon kinda guy, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Suggestion: Nikon D90 (body only), plus Nikon 18-200mm/VR lens.

The D90 is capable enough and flexible enough to meet your needs for a long long while, without being intimidating. The 18-200mm lens is a great all-around lens. Even if you decide you want wider or longer or faster lenses, the 18-200 lens will still be a very useful lens for you.

The Canon 450 is less capable than the D90 (subject to debate, of course), and the 40D seemed outdated when it came out. The Canon 50D is probably a good bet, especially paired with Canon's newly announced 18-200/IS lens.

note: VR is Nikon trademark for image stabilisation.
note: IS is Canon trademark for image stabilisation.

You really can't go wrong -- there are so many good solutions available, all with different tradeoffs. Just start somewhere, and see where you are led.

NOTE: If you do get a Nikon camera, I enthusiastically recommend the corresponding user guide written by Thom Hogan (see bythom.com). The User Manual supplied by the Mfr. is a dry, eye-glazing reference manual. Thom Hogan's user guides actually help you understand and use the camera, teaching quite a bit about photography fundamentals along the way. If you buy a Canon body, seek advice in the Canon forum for a similar guide. If you buy a Sony or Minolta body, check out Gary Friedman's e-books.

Welcome to the wonderful world of dSLR nerding!

-- Bob Elkind
Family,in/outdoor sports, landscape, wildlife
photo galleries at http://eteam.zenfolio.com
my relationship with my camera is strictly photonic

which DSLR camera should i buy?

Active member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Active member

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Active member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts