dslr questions

Dear photoexperts and enthusiasts,

Greetings from the Netherlands! I've been looking at buying my first DSLR, but I don't seem to be able to narrow down my choices. I've been reading on various websites, and got the most useful information from this particular website and especially the forum. I realize there are many posts with similar questions to mine, but I would be great if you could give a newbe like me some tailor-made advice.

For years I've been using various film and digital compact camera's, gradually moving up from simple point-and-shoots, to camera's that allowed more manual control. My last two were a Canon G5 (very nice photo's at the time, nice colors etc.) and a Nikon p5100 (image stabilization, very intuitive, auto-iso range, small). I enjoyed both these camera's very much, and I have been using the (semi)-manual settings of those more and more. I guess it was inevitable that I eventually would run into the limitations of these camera's. I've started to feel frustrated when I cannot make decent indoor pictures without increasing the iso-value to unacceptable values, or when I cannot zoom-in far enough to frame that far away subject. Not to mention the disappointing portrait photo's generated by these camera's. In addition, I noticed I am actually always carrying a backpack, negating most of the advantage of having a pocketable camera over something bigger.

So, the time (and money) has finally come for me to take the leap and buy a (upper entry-level) DSLR. As I said, I have good experiences with Canon and Nikon, and I have less good experiences with Sony (compacts). It will surprise no one that I'm considering the Canon 500D, or the Nikon D5000/D90. All of these are supposedly excellent, and it is difficult deciding between them. My first question to you therefore is: Are there any camera's of other brands in this price-range that I should consider?

On a number of sites I came across the credo that the quality of the photo is determined for 90% by the photographer (which I can only improve through practice), 9% by the lens, and only 1% by the camera. So, it seems prudent to look at which lenses are compatible with each brand and model of camera before choosing a camera. Here, however, I really need a lot of advice, because there is so much choice in focal-range, F-values and quality. I understand that primes generally give better IQ, and have lower F-values for a similar or lower price. Zoomlenses, on the other hand, are more convenient, so one does not need to change lenses all the time (and one doesn't need to carry a large number of lenses). Off course the choice of lens depends on the application. I checked the photo's I made over the last two years, and they can be categorized as follows:

• Landscape and architecture (taken at focal lengths of 28-40 full format, and higher F numbers) : 35%
• Indoor non-moving objects, churches, temples, objects in musea (without flash, lowest iso possible): 30%
• Outdoor portraits in daylight (often zoomed in a bit, lowest possible F-number on my compact) : 20%
• Indoor/evening portraits (most taken at too high iso value or too long exposure times): 10%
• Macros of insects and plants (mostly taken in good light outside): 5%

The actual number of indoor photo's I make is higher, but many of them fail or are disappointing and are deleted immediately. With the outdoor photo's I am almost satisfied with the photo's from my compacts, apart from the lack of depth-of-field in portraits and the relatively limited zoom capabilities of these camera's. Based on these requirements, what lenses should I consider? My budget is about 1500 euro's, and here in europe that would buy me a D90 and a 16-85 nikkor lens (just to get an idea of the prices here, I might still go for Canon). The idea of a 1x-xx zoomlens seems appealing, because that would limit the number of times I need to exchange lenses on-the-go (especially handy on holidays). On the other hand, the zooms are expensive and heavy, and often have larger minimal F-values. I also noticed that I currently take most photo's either at the widest possible angle, or at the smallest angle of my (limited) zoom lenses (all the time wishing that I could zoom further). I seldomly take photo's at say 2x zoom. Would it therefore be better to get a wide-angle prime (at say, 18mm for a APS-C) and a telezoom (50-XXX or 70-XXX)? This could be similar in price to getting one 1x-xx zoom lens. How would it affect my chances of taking nice portrait/inside photo's?

I have the feeling I'm drowning in numbers, reviews, and possibilities. I really hope you experts and enthusiasts can help me out here. I would also greatly appreciate it if you could give me concrete examples of good lenses and lens-combinations and tips on what to look for.

Kind regards from the Netherlands,

Erik

One of the most well thought post I would say. You went really into details of many things.

Few things I could make from your post.

Your shooting style needs more WA lenses than the telephoto ones. Therefore the lens with max end at 200mm would be fine for you.

You do a lot of Portraiture work. Therefore you should go a fast prime lens (a lens with fixed focal length say 50mm, 77mm, 85mm, 135mm etc.)

You'll also need a decent WA lens like 16-50 or 17-70mm, however Kitlens would do just fine to start with.

You'll be fine with standard 50-200mm zooms offered by various brands too. Unless you want to shoot lot of wild life and/or sports. 70-300mm will also serve good.

Another thing you may like is stabilized system. There you have to choose between image stabilized body or lens. Because Nikon-Canon dont give image stabilized bodies and hence you have to buy each image stabilized lens as per your needs.

Sony, Pentax and Olympus has image stabilized bodies and any lens is automatically makes image stabilized system.

I would suggest to have a look at Pentax and Olympus too and not only to canon, Nikon.

Atindra

ErikZ78 said:

Dear photoexperts and enthusiasts,

For years I've been using various film and digital compact camera's, gradually moving up from simple point-and-shoots, to camera's that allowed more manual control. My last two were a Canon G5 (very nice photo's at the time, nice colors etc.) and a Nikon p5100 (image stabilization, very intuitive, auto-iso range, small). I enjoyed both these camera's very much, and I have been using the (semi)-manual settings of those more and more. I guess it was inevitable that I eventually would run into the limitations of these camera's. I've started to feel frustrated when I cannot make decent indoor pictures without increasing the iso-value to unacceptable values, or when I cannot zoom-in far enough to frame that far away subject. Not to mention the disappointing portrait photo's generated by these camera's. In addition, I noticed I am actually always carrying a backpack, negating most of the advantage of having a pocketable camera over something bigger.

So, the time (and money) has finally come for me to take the leap and buy a (upper entry-level) DSLR. As I said, I have good experiences with Canon and Nikon, and I have less good experiences with Sony (compacts). It will surprise no one that I'm considering the Canon 500D, or the Nikon D5000/D90. All of these are supposedly excellent, and it is difficult deciding between them. My first question to you therefore is: Are there any camera's of other brands in this price-range that I should consider?

Click to expand...

Yes, all of them.

Try as many cameras as you can. Every brand will have lenses to do what you want within your price range.

I am getting the new Pentax K-x. Should be close to the top of high iso apsc performace at the moment but at a lower price than just about all and should drop in price as it has only been released this week (and still not in many parts of the world).

I have had issues with a Sony point and shoot as well but I would still consider the Sony dslr cameras in your price range as well as Olympus and any others. The Pentax K20d may suit you as well as it is a higher class camera that has been superceded and is way down in price...all that is missing really is a fast fps and from what you do , you do not need that.

All cameras will have there strengths and weaknesses and at this level these days all are pretty good.
Get what feels right for YOU.

I know you want concrete examples, I would only suggest you just try what cameras you can find, I would put the camera a lot more than 1 percent...from there all brands have some nice lenses (and some dogs) and there are some nice third party ones as well like 24/28-60/70/75 2.8 from the likes of Sigma, Tamron, Cosina etc.

I love my Tamron 17-35 2.804 on both my IST*D and (deceased) K100d, I am sure I will love it on my K-x and I have a feeling it will be a great lens for low light videos. Discontinued lens but still lots around. The other thing with the Pentax is it will take and use well all the old K mount, m42 mount and even Nikon pre AI lenses (do the last at your own risk) and they will all be stabilized....lots of nice low light primes...my favourite right now is a 60 year old 58 f2 Biotar.

For your money you could get a K-x and a 17-35 2.8-4 from Tamron or Sigma and 50mm fast prime or a longer macro around 90mm. I note you do not use longer fcoal lengths much so you could get a cheaper one around the70/80-200 or 300 mm mark to try and see if you like the focal lengths.

There are plenty of reasonably (some very) cheap manual focus lenses you can try for things like 50mm as well to play around with...the IQ will be very good and you may find you do not need more.

ErikZ78 said:

• Landscape and architecture (taken at focal lengths of 28-40 full format, and higher F numbers) : 35%
• Indoor non-moving objects, churches, temples, objects in musea (without flash, lowest iso possible): 30%
• Outdoor portraits in daylight (often zoomed in a bit, lowest possible F-number on my compact) : 20%
• Indoor/evening portraits (most taken at too high iso value or too long exposure times): 10%
• Macros of insects and plants (mostly taken in good light outside): 5%

The actual number of indoor photo's I make is higher, but many of them fail or are disappointing and are deleted immediately. With the outdoor photo's I am almost satisfied with the photo's from my compacts, apart from the lack of depth-of-field in portraits and the relatively limited zoom capabilities of these camera's. Based on these requirements, what lenses should I consider? My budget is about 1500 euro's, and here in europe that would buy me a D90 and a 16-85 nikkor lens (just to get an idea of the prices here, I might still go for Canon). The idea of a 1x-xx zoomlens seems appealing, because that would limit the number of times I need to exchange lenses on-the-go (especially handy on holidays). On the other hand, the zooms are expensive and heavy, and often have larger minimal F-values. I also noticed that I currently take most photo's either at the widest possible angle, or at the smallest angle of my (limited) zoom lenses (all the time wishing that I could zoom further). I seldomly take photo's at say 2x zoom. Would it therefore be better to get a wide-angle prime (at say, 18mm for a APS-C) and a telezoom (50-XXX or 70-XXX)? This could be similar in price to getting one 1x-xx zoom lens. How would it affect my chances of taking nice portrait/inside photo's?

I have the feeling I'm drowning in numbers, reviews, and possibilities. I really hope you experts and enthusiasts can help me out here. I would also greatly appreciate it if you could give me concrete examples of good lenses and lens-combinations and tips on what to look for.

Kind regards from the Netherlands,

Erik

Click to expand...

neil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/

Hi Erik,

You seem to have a very structured and comprehensively detailed mind. You have done research on yourself and your photos.

Now you should extend your research to all brands and models but you first need some practical realistic measures or guidelines.

ErikZ78 said:

Dear photoexperts and enthusiasts,

Click to expand...

ErikZ78 said:

On a number of sites I came across the credo that the quality of the photo is determined for 90% by the photographer (which I can only improve through practice), 9% by the lens, and only 1% by the camera. So, it seems prudent to look at which

Click to expand...

Too synthetic a measure and not practical. It was my simple approach to say that the photographer is 80% and the equipment is 20%. But that is too synthetic, too abstract. There is an overlap between the photographer and his equipment and there is an overlap in the body and the lens. My current points system is indicative of overlapping parameters:

http://anandasim.blogspot.com/2009/09/apr-anandasims-photo-rating-system.html

The equipment and photographer overlap in Execution. But even something like Visualisation - you visualise based on what is visible and what you experience from your equipment. In Wow factor - you can't really cleanly separate why the Wow - is it due to sharpness, colour, or composition or some aspect of subject etc....

ErikZ78 said:

so much choice in focal-range, F-values and quality. I understand that primes generally give better IQ, and have lower F-values for a similar or lower price. Zoomlenses, on the other hand, are more convenient, so one does not need to change lenses all the time (and one doesn't need to carry a large number of lenses). Off course the choice of lens depends on the application.

Click to expand...

You either think zoom or think prime. And you go through phases.

ErikZ78 said:

I checked the photo's I made over the last two years, and they can be categorized as follows:

Click to expand...

Show us some photos. This will allow us to key into what your style is.

ErikZ78 said:

portraits and the relatively limited zoom capabilities of these camera's. Based on these requirements, what lenses should I consider? My budget is about 1500 euro's,

Click to expand...

I think this is a choice you have to make. And you can't make the choice until you have experienced some results. Dog chasing its tail. The way to break this cycle is to do what the makers do. Buy the kit lens. Or an all-in-one zoom. But buy a lens so that you can shoot. There is a Chinese poem about the 11th biscuit makes your stomach full. But you cannot eat only the 11th biscuit. You have to eat 10 before you eat the 11th.

Only after you have experienced the kit lens (which is made cheap because it is high volume, low price), what it does, what it does not do, then you have learnt what you need.

ErikZ78 said:

I seldomly take photo's at say 2x zoom.

Click to expand...

Get rid of that jargon "2x zoom". It does not help you progress your knowledge and skill. Learn what equivalent mm you have favourites. But then, your current technique is gained by using small sensor cameras and non interchangeable lens cameras. Once you get a bigger sensor camera (DOF change, perspective change), your technique may change.

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.mp

camera to select.

My first comment is that you're right, a good compact will do fine as long as there is good lighting. It's in difficult lighting, such as the interiors of churches, that the DSLR shines and for that it's less the camera than how you use it.

I don't do much telephoto work but I do a lot of interiors of old churches and in museums. For me, the in-body stabilization that works with all my lenses is a real plus. Neither Canon nor Nikon fall into this category.

I haven't used all brands but it seems that whatever you get and use becomes convenient to use. You learn the buttons and functions for your brand. I assume all brands have some consistency in operation from one model to another.
--
Patrick T. Kelly
Oaxaca, Mexico

Given that you shoot inside a lot, high ISO would seem to be important to you. Or more precisely, image quality in "available light" would seem to be important to you. This narrows the field a good bit. Optionally you can overcome this by shooting with very wide aperture (low f-stop value) but leads to very shallow depth of field.

The Nikon d5000 and d90 have better high ISO performance than anything else in this price range. They also have better dynamic range. check dxomark.com. The d90 is the top rated aps-c camera. The d5000 has the same sensor, but not a bit less in the feature set, and the ergonomics is not quite as pleasent to me.

The things which impact a photo are: available light, direction of the light, type of light, clarity of air (is there fog, haze, smoke of dust to diffuse the light). Short version: Light.

The settings on the camera which impact light are: aperture (how wide open the entry point for light to the sensor is), shutter (how long this opening is held open), and ISO how sensitive the sensor is set to be.

Aperture, wide = more light enters the camera per time interval. Also the wider the aperture, the shallower the depth of field (the other things which impact DOF are focal length of lens and distance to subject). A wider aperture is the easiest way to get better low light images. It also makes for nice portraits by allowing you to blur the backgroud and create subject isolation.
Here is a focal length calculator:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Then there is where does the light go. It travels through a lens to a sensor. Different quality of lenses will distort the light more or less. There are a lot of factors that go in to it. The sensor absorbs the light. The rate of absorbtion is the ISO rate. What you are actually doing to adjusting the sensitivity. The further you push it, the noiser it gets. The nicer Nikons allow you to push it quite a bit further than other cameras in this price class. Full frame cameras are even better, where the nicest when it comes to ISO remain Nikons... just really expensive.

There are plenty of good other brands. The two market leaders are Canon and Nikon. They are close in sales and combine for 83.7% of all DSLR sales. Canon and Nikon use in lens stabilization. They both say this is better. Canon wrote a white paper explaining the limitations of in body stabilization. Short version is that as the lens focal length gets longer it becomes more of a challenge for the sensor to move far enough and fast enough to match in lens. Also that as the lens gets longer these vibrations are amplified and the exact degree of stabilization becomes more important. Finally in body stabilization is dependent on the profile of the lens. This is imprecise at best. No two companies 100mm lenses are the exact same FL. The general rule of thumb seems to be somewhere between 5-10% variance. This will throw off the sensor a little to a lot. Most of the time, it does not seem to throw it off to matter.

In camera has the advantage that all lenses will receieve some stabilization. You mentioned a in primes due to IQ(image quality) aperture. Primes are the least likely to have in lens stabiliztion. This is because of the speed (available aperture) and short focal length, many think it is not neccessary. This is usually true, as I seldom have issues with my shortest prime (35mm f1.8). But I still think it is annoying. And, at times like this I wish my d90 had in camera IS/VR in addition to the in lens.

So which ever one you get it will annoy you not to have the other. The other draws to the Nikon and Canon lenses are the much better selection of lenses (even though none of us will ever likely buy all avaialble for any brand, choices are nice), the avialablity of truely pro glass (which almost none of us can afford, but again choices are nice), a upgrade path to buy ever fancier bodies and use the same lenses is attractive.

The main options other than Nikon and canon are Olympus, Sony and Pentax. All of reasonable offerings.

But back on your indoors and avialable light shooting. You can do it with a Canon (for example) and a fast lens. But assuming you occasionally want a little deeper DOF, then Nikons tend to be the most interesting. They have lower noise at higher ISOs. With my Canon 500d, it was pretty noisy at 1600ISO, but I could live with it. With my d90, I get fairly clean images at 3200ISO. I can push it further, but then in most lighting situation there will be some noise and I will need to turn on the in camera high ISO noise filter. The d300 and the newer d300s are more of the same, just better, faster and weather proof. The d90 despite all the cool things I can say about it, does not have weather sealing like the Canon 50d, Pentax k-7 or Nikon d300. So either use one of those "camera tubes" (like a rainproof sock with two holes), have a friend with an umbrella, or stay inside when it rains. The d5000 is like a d90, but it does not support as many of the older lenses quite as well (although it there are like 85-91 af-s lenses now)
http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

Also the d90 has a little better control layout with multiple dials (so nice once you get used to it), is a little faster, little better AF system, etc.

However if none of that matters to you, and you think the 85-91 autofocusing lenses are enough, then the d5000 is the same sensor.

Also consider ergonomics. The d90 and d5000 have very different ergonomics. If neither works for you, do not buy one. Consider the canon d200 (older but good) d300, expensive but very good, Canon 40d or 50d, Pentax k-7 for everything except high ISO (it is weather sealed), the Pentax k-x for a low cost higher ISO option (supposedly has a good sensor, and very bad battery life but not reviewed much yet).

Assuming the either the very d90 or d5000 will fit with you:
I like the following lenses:

General use: My favorite lens is the 16-85 VR II. Newest VR (Vibration reduction). Nikon's sharpest zoom lens with out getting PRO glass. The Canon equivalent is the 15-85IS, it is probably just as good but almost twice as expensive.

Almost as good (not in my opinion, but in most peoples) is the 18-105 VR. Older VR, but works very well. Not as wide but longer reach.

Light telephoto: My favorite here is the 70-300 VRII. Doubles as so-so portrait lens when at the short end, and shot wide open (aperture = max). Good image quality. Not too heavy. Good overlap with the 16-85. I prefer the NIkon version to the Canon.

Not as good but much cheaper and lighter is the 55-200 VR. It does not have enough reach for me. But it can stay on your camera much more often since it goes all the way in to 55. I prefer the Canon 55-250IS to the 55-200VR.

Short fast prime:

35mm f1.8 Nikon. with a crop correction of 1.5 it gives an equivalent view (equivalent focal length) to a 50mm on a full frame or film camera. This is very close to normal human pOV. This lens is cheap, light and very good image quality. The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a little better and a good bit faster but twice the price.

50mm, I prefer the Sigma f1.4 to the NIkon. The sigma just focused faster, and seemed to give me smoother background blur (bokeh). These 50mm lenses (or the cheaper f1.8 on ONLY the d90 or above) make decent short portrait lenses.

An external bliz allows you to bounce the light creating a more natural fill. It greatly reduces redeye. Almost eliminates it. Reduces the harsh shadows from a popup flash, and improves skin tone, and better light for background details. Get one when budget allows.

That is enough to get started. Consider a wide angle down the road. Which one is the best will vary depending on useage (lighting used, subject matter) and body (for example the excellent tokina is not autofocus on the d5000 but others from Nikon, Sigma and Tamron are.

ErikZ78 said:

My first question to you therefore is: Are there any camera's of other brands in this price-range that I should consider?

Click to expand...

Ignore the fanbois who suggest you ignore the market leaders...they are leaders for a reason!

ErikZ78 said:

On a number of sites I came across the credo that the quality of the photo is determined for 90% by the photographer (which I can only improve through practice), 9% by the lens, and only 1% by the camera.

Click to expand...

That's quite unbalanced. The lens is not 9X more important than the body. The digital revolution has made the body more important than in the days of film bodies. Increasingly, digital bodies correct some lens aberrations...things like CA/PF and vignetting. Soon they will correct for geometric distortion and then later for perspective distortion. Some manufacturers are shipping really cheap lenses and "fixing" their problems in the digital realm.

ErikZ78 said:

So, it seems prudent to look at which lenses are compatible with each brand and model of camera before choosing a camera. Here, however, I really need a lot of advice, because there is so much choice in focal-range, F-values and quality.

Click to expand...

In general, all the brands will have enough lenses for you (or anyone) and if not, the 2nd tier manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc) will gladly fill any void. These three have some outstanding lenses.

ErikZ78 said:

I understand that primes generally give better IQ, and have lower F-values for a similar or lower price. Zoomlenses, on the other hand, are more convenient, so one does not need to change lenses all the time (and one doesn't need to carry a large number of lenses).

Click to expand...

In the past 15 years, zoom-lens technology has greatly improved the IQ of these lenses. For most people, a zoom is the first line lens. Only when extreme, closeup detail must be captured( macro lens) or extreme low-light must be overcome (apertures less than f/2.8) do the "prime" lenses have a place.

ErikZ78 said:

Off course the choice of lens depends on the application. I checked the photo's I made over the last two years, and they can be categorized as follows:

• Landscape and architecture (taken at focal lengths of 28-40 full format, and higher F numbers) : 35%
• Indoor non-moving objects, churches, temples, objects in musea (without flash, lowest iso possible): 30%
• Outdoor portraits in daylight (often zoomed in a bit, lowest possible F-number on my compact) : 20%
• Indoor/evening portraits (most taken at too high iso value or too long exposure times): 10%
• Macros of insects and plants (mostly taken in good light outside): 5%

Click to expand...

Over half of your pix need a WA lens...and some of them need a really low aperture.

If you ever experience an ultra-WA lens, you will be hooked. Whatever body you get, buy, rent, borrow, or steal a Sigma 10-20mm SWA lens! You'll need a good tripod too, because SWA lenses can't be made with extreme apertures (at the moment).

ErikZ78 said:

The actual number of indoor photo's I make is higher, but many of them fail or are disappointing and are deleted immediately. With the outdoor photo's I am almost satisfied with the photo's from my compacts, apart from the lack of depth-of-field in portraits and the relatively limited zoom capabilities of these camera's. Based on these requirements, what lenses should I consider?

Click to expand...

I'll tell you what I have found... I use my 70-200mm f/2.8 about 70% of the time. I use my 10-20mm and my 60mm macro about 15% each. I don't have a dedicated "portrait" lens, but do a lot of portraits. I like to get back away from the subject, so that they relax, and find the 70-200mm perfect for that. If I need to make each hair jump out, I put the 60mm macro on.

ErikZ78 said:

My budget is about 1500 euro's, and here in europe that would buy me a D90 and a 16-85 nikkor lens (just to get an idea of the prices here, I might still go for Canon).

Click to expand...

That's a tight budget!

ErikZ78 said:

The idea of a 1x-xx zoomlens seems appealing, because that would limit the number of times I need to exchange lenses on-the-go (especially handy on holidays). On the other hand, the zooms are expensive and heavy, and often have larger minimal F-values. I also noticed that I currently take most photo's either at the widest possible angle, or at the smallest angle of my (limited) zoom lenses (all the time wishing that I could zoom further).

Click to expand...

Yes, get something like that 10-20mm...you'll love it!

ErikZ78 said:

I seldomly take photo's at say 2x zoom. Would it therefore be better to get a wide-angle prime (at say, 18mm for a APS-C) and a telezoom (50-XXX or 70-XXX)?

Click to expand...

Drop the "2X" idea...it makes no sense in the dSLR world. You need more than 18mm! Consider that 18mm is equivalent to only 27mm (Nikon) or 29mm (Canon), in that it gives that angular field-of-view on a FF 35mm camera.

ErikZ78 said:

This could be similar in price to getting one 1x-xx zoom lens. How would it affect my chances of taking nice portrait/inside photo's?

Click to expand...

With your budget, you will have to compromise. One solution is to put off until later some of the lenses...get something basic now. Another solution is to buy used equipment.

With the D90/D5000, you will have access to really great high sensitivity, which will compensate somewhat for "slower" lenses. There are also some really great NR programs that can help with noisy, low-light pix.

ErikZ78 said:

I have the feeling I'm drowning in numbers, reviews, and possibilities. I really hope you experts and enthusiasts can help me out here. I would also greatly appreciate it if you could give me concrete examples of good lenses and lens-combinations and tips on what to look for.

Click to expand...

I did mention a few possibilities, but it's your choice. Read this:

http://www.1derful.info/Help/EssentialSkills.htm

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
'I'm from Texas. We have meat in our vegetables.'
Trenton Doyle Hancock

chuxter said:

ErikZ78 said:

My first question to you therefore is: Are there any camera's of other brands in this price-range that I should consider?

Click to expand...

Ignore the fanbois who suggest you ignore the market leaders...they are leaders for a reason!

Click to expand...

So, who did that?

There is no one in this thread (at the moment), a few people answered the question asked and gave opinions on what to buy...for me that is whatever is right for the buyer...even if it IS Canon or Nikon. I note you did not answer the question though.

There are people like Bjorn or Dayo who are just anti brands in these forums (mainly Pentax or Sony or Oly) that I all to frequently get sucked into their garbage. sometimes lately they do so in a way that makes them seem more rational but it is mostly still they same rot.

ALL brands make/have available good cameras and lenses.

neil

ErikZ78 said:

Greetings from the Netherlands! (...)
Kind regards from the Netherlands,

Click to expand...

Hallo Erik en welkom op dit forum

Good of you to come with a long and comprohensice post explaining what you want and why.
There's no such thing as 'the best camera', it all depends on your needs.

As others have suggested: every brand will do. All DSLRes are good. But do try them, hold them in your hands and do take pictures. In a shop, or even better go to some friends and hold their camera.

When you don't know what to buy, lenswise, I'd suggest to start with a kit lens. They are quite good actually, give a good range of zoom and offer a lot of bang for the bug.

Shooting with it will reveil what limits you are looking at. Then (after some months or even a year) you can decide to go for a wider zoom (some soft hint is given in an earlier post ), a macro lens or a stronger telezoom.

I read that you shot film as well. I expect it to be 35mm film on a SLR. Then you know how to talk about 28mm wide, 35 mm wide, 50mm standard, 135mm tele and so on.

Depending on the body, more precisely the sensor size, you need to calculate in the crop factor. In other words, a 28mm lens on a 1.6 (canon) will act as a 44.8mm on 35mm film. So a 28mm is not a wide angle at all, but a standard-like lens. Even so a 70-200 zoom wil act as a 112-320mm tele, roughly 2.2 times tele (compared to standard) up til 6 times tele.

No you might know (from film days or something) which limits you encounter most. I did know what to expect when I bought my first DSLR and bought a kit lens and a tele-zoom lens.
This can easily be done for €1.500, I expect even more than that.

And I'm happy with it. In time ( later, als ik groot ben ) I'll add a wide zoom as well, or a nice L-glass (yes, I've chosen Canon), like an f/2.8 telezoom.

If you allready know what you want, do that, if not: go for any of the brands and buy a (camera and) kit lens first. By the rest when you're sure what you want most.

By the way: Do consider software as well. Lightroom and Photoshop are great programs, but they tend to ask shiploads of money for it.

veel plezier met je hobby
--
All in my humble opionion of course!

If I seem to talk nonsense or you can't understand me, it's probably my English /

Alpha 350 with Zeiss 16-80 would be just excellent.
Arun Gaur

http://tripolia-indianlandscapeimages.com

ErikZ78 said:

My budget is about 1500 euro's, and here in europe that would buy me a D90 and a 16-85 nikkor lens (just to get an idea of the prices here, I might still go for Canon).

Click to expand...

That's not a bad lens, especially since it's 24mm-equivalent on the wide end. If you can stretch the budget, you might consider adding a 35mm f/1.8 ("fast normal") lens; while not custom-designed for either purpose, it might help both with no-flash indoor photography of non-moving objects, and with indoors portraits.

neil holmes said:

chuxter said:

ErikZ78 said:

My first question to you therefore is: Are there any camera's of other brands in this price-range that I should consider?

Click to expand...

Ignore the fanbois who suggest you ignore the market leaders...they are leaders for a reason!

Click to expand...

So, who did that?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure anybody did, but you got defensive. ;-)

I did notice a Sony fanboi following this...

Member said:

There is no one in this thread (at the moment), a few people answered the question asked and gave opinions on what to buy...for me that is whatever is right for the buyer...even if it IS Canon or Nikon. I note you did not answer the question though.

Click to expand...

Yes, I failed there. Others had given the answer, that all dSLRs are pretty good.

Member said:

There are people like Bjorn or Dayo who are just anti brands in these forums (mainly Pentax or Sony or Oly) that I all to frequently get sucked into their garbage. sometimes lately they do so in a way that makes them seem more rational but it is mostly still they same rot.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
'I'm from Texas. We have meat in our vegetables.'
Trenton Doyle Hancock

chuxter said:

chuxter said:

There are people like Bjorn or Dayo who are just anti brands in these forums (mainly Pentax or Sony or Oly) that I all to frequently get sucked into their garbage. sometimes lately they do so in a way that makes them seem more rational but it is mostly still they same rot.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.

Click to expand...

Excuse me?

I had to put Neil on my ignore list because seemingly his loveless life and thankless job as a employment councellor or something eqaully lame was too much for him to remain civil or even on topic. And dayo.... well.... nuff said. So honestly I do not care what people like Neil or dayo say good or bad.
But you are agreeing this propagandist because??

I have not been anti-anything. Unlike most on here I have owned 3 branded DSLRs and probably adviced different people to consider them and just about every other... not sure if I suggested Panasonic other than once the GH1 and once the GF1 (which I do not like personally).

Bjorn_L said:

chuxter said:

Bjorn_L said:

There are people like Bjorn or Dayo who are just anti brands in these forums (mainly Pentax or Sony or Oly) that I all to frequently get sucked into their garbage. sometimes lately they do so in a way that makes them seem more rational but it is mostly still they same rot.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.

Click to expand...

Excuse me?

I had to put Neil on my ignore list because seemingly his loveless life and thankless job as a employment councellor or something eqaully lame was too much for him to remain civil or even on topic. And dayo.... well.... nuff said. So honestly I do not care what people like Neil or dayo say good or bad.

Click to expand...

LOL

I am glad I am on this idiots ignore list, means I do not get stuck into long arguments with him but I can post evidence in reply....makes it a lot easier to deal with.

He is also not adverse to lying when caught out.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=33148609
but then, lots more like this...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=33067668

but then he NEVER said it did he?

Many of his posts are just opinion but stated as fact.

If you state a fact and prove it and he does not like it he will eventually modify his posts but still put a slant on it against "insert brand of whoever he is in argument with here"....even if he can not underestand it he will still post his "facts".

For instance if Canon says something it must be true but if one of the other makes does, well it is just not right. (btw I think all manufacturers will put their own spin on things and are all not above bending the truth.)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=33109447

Nikon and to a lesser extent Canon can do no wrong , lately he is has been saying things differently somewhat to previously, always just enough to put a knock on one of the other brands tinted to favour Nikon (or Canon).

It is kinda like me saying (everytime someone asks about one or two different cameras)....You should not buy a D90...nice camera but it has very soft default jpegs....or even...if you buy Nikon you take a risk that there will be something wrong and it will need to be recalled...maybe even twice!....as in the last few year roughly ten percent of their dlsr camera models have been.

Now I do not do that but it would be MORE correct than some of the things he states as fact.

As for my job and life, I quite like themt thanks...maybe as much as Bjorn likes his unpaid troll job and life spent here?

....I still spend too much time here.... Can not imagine where I would get the time to post more than 40 times a week for three months though unless this WAS my life.

Bjorn_L said:

But you are agreeing this propagandist because??

Click to expand...

So who is the propagandist?? This just proves my point.... I guess "try as many as you can and get what is right for you" is too much for Bjorn to understand.

Maybe I am right?

I have actually seen a couple of his recent posts that were not just his version of facts, where not brand bashing and may actually be helpful...Guess there is some hope yet....though they seem to be when it is purely a Nikon or Nikon vs canon question.

neil

Hi Everyone,

Many thanks to all the people that have already responded to my questions, some of the replies are very detailed indeed! I tremendously appreciate you taking the time to help out a beginner. Please keep 'em coming!

The replies sofar have given me a lot to think about. First of all there is the camera-issue. I must admit I had mentally narrowed my choice to canon and nikon. This was mainly for nostalgia reasons, which seemed to be confirmed subsequently by positive reviews on this and other websites. Now however, I realize this was oversimplifying things, the fact that the Nikon and Canon camera's get good reviews doesn't mean the other brands make bad camera's. As one responder wrote, all brands can produce good camera's. I will have to read more on this website (and others) on pentax, sony, panasonic and olympus camera's before taking the plunge.

Especially, I did not fully appreciate points like different image stabilization systems and weather-sealing before, and these are things I definitely need to take into consideration. I like the idea of a general in-body IS over having to buy individual stabilized lenses, but I think both options will be fine for me. I don't think I'll be taking many telephoto's (at least initially), and for indoor photo's I want to get a faster lens to freeze out movement. In addition, I don't think I will want to own more than say 4-8 different lenses. Or am I underestimating the usefullness of image stabilization (in it's various forms)?

Am I right to say that weather sealing is one of those features that only appears on more expensive models (maybe apart from Pentax)? Because then I maybe will have to live with alternative solutions such as the above-mentioned plastic protection.

On the lens issue, a lot of it depends on the brand of camera I choose. Seeing the excellent comments on this topic, I think my best starting point is a general zoom-lens (either a kit lens, a more expensive option or a third-party lens). Maybe buy a reasonably cheap fast prime after that and see how my photography develops. I also gather that there is a lot of trading going on with second-hand lenses. One question that I do have concerning lenses is: how wide is wide? I've read that 18mm should be wide enough for general purposes on APS camera's. Can someone explain to me why one would like to take photo's at 10mm? wouldn't this lead to very distorted perspectives?

Again, many thanks for all the replies sofar. Although from this posting it may seem as if I am more, and not less confused as before, your answers have brought be a lot of insight. And the more I read, the more I want to buy a camera and start shooting.

Erik

ErikZ78 said:

The replies sofar have given me a lot to think about. First of all there is the camera-issue. I must admit I had mentally narrowed my choice to canon and nikon. This was mainly for nostalgia reasons, which seemed to be confirmed subsequently by positive reviews on this and other websites. Now however, I realize this was oversimplifying things, the fact that the Nikon and Canon camera's get good reviews doesn't mean the other brands make bad camera's. As one responder wrote, all brands can produce good camera's. I will have to read more on this website (and others) on pentax, sony, panasonic and olympus camera's before taking the plunge.

Click to expand...

Also do consider lens selection. I think most brands have many more lenses than you will ever own. But make sure they are the kinds of lenses you want to buy.

ErikZ78 said:

Or am I underestimating the usefullness of image stabilization (in it's various forms)?

Click to expand...

No, I would say you get it. The areas where IS is most useful is at the long end. The focal length amplifies the movment. The other area where it helps is when you are trying to hold the shutter open a very long time. Most of the time this is taking place a flash would help more than IS (preferably a bounce capable flash). If you are moving around a lot it helps too, just not as much. Because you have to steady for a fraction of a second to get the IS to work right. I have owned both types in body and in lens. They are not so different.

I love IS. Having used both in lens and in body, I can say I do not regret the IS I get in lens. It is in my opinion better. What I do regret is not getting it on my primes. I generally prefer zooms, where IS is the norm. But some lenses are only really available as primes. I enjoy "available light" photography. I take hikes in to sometimes rather shady woods. In these cases I find I prefer as fast a lens as i have in the bag that day. My current favorite prime is my 35mm f1.8 (cheap, weighs nothing, and is crazy sharp).

ErikZ78 said:

Am I right to say that weather sealing is one of those features that only appears on more expensive models (maybe apart from Pentax)? Because then I maybe will have to live with alternative solutions such as the above-mentioned plastic protection.

Click to expand...

I know it sounds cheesy, but I bought the d90 instead of the more spendy d300 (ooops) and so I use this to take photos of my kids in sports.

ErikZ78 said:

On the lens issue, a lot of it depends on the brand of camera I choose. Seeing the excellent comments on this topic, I think my best starting point is a general zoom-lens (either a kit lens, a more expensive option or a third-party lens). Maybe buy a reasonably cheap fast prime after that and see how my photography develops. I also gather that there is a lot of trading going on with second-hand lenses. One question that I do have concerning lenses is: how wide is wide? I've read that 18mm should be wide enough for general purposes on APS camera's. Can someone explain to me why one would like to take photo's at 10mm? wouldn't this lead to very distorted perspectives?

Click to expand...

I think you are on a good path for a starting lens selection. A standard zoom with a little reach (not a mega zoom) can really help you get started. Work on composition, framing, etc... later a prime is nice. Especially for lower light situations or when you are taking portraits and want to smoothly blur out the background (bokeh). Which standard prime depends on your goals and budget.

The most common on most is the Kit lens, a 18-55 lens. I think this is a little short. On Nikon the three good alternatives are the Nikon 16-85 (my favorite), the Nikon 18-105 and the tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC (a little better in low light ).

ErikZ78 said:

I want to buy a camera and start shooting.

Click to expand...

Ultimately this is what is the best part. Good photos, and the effort to get them "just so". This is far more pleasing than worrying about brands. I have owned 3 different DSLR brands. Only regret was the canon, which too great photos but was the wrong camera ergonomically for me. If I had opted for the nearly identically priced 50d instead of the 500d I would probably still be using it since the advanges to upgrade to the d90 are far less compelling if you are comfortable holding your current camera.

I stepped into a "hornet's nest" w/o knowing it. Sorry...

Bjorn...

I was agreeing that:

"There are people like Bjorn or Dayo who are just anti brands in these forums (mainly Pentax or Sony or Oly)..." In retrospect, I think there are just as many people who hate Nikon and Canon as the other three...what was I thinking?

The bottom line is a simple truth: There are people who hate some brands and spew venom in their direction.

I personally think Dayo is much worse than you are.

Neil...

I looked at your links and didn't see that Bjorn was doing anything wrong. He stated an opinion...it obviously is different than your opinion...that's OK with me. But I didn't think it was especially controversial or provocative...

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
'I'm from Texas. We have meat in our vegetables.'
Trenton Doyle Hancock

chuxter said:

I stepped into a "hornet's nest" w/o knowing it. Sorry...

Bjorn...

I was agreeing that:

"There are people like Bjorn or Dayo who are just anti brands in these forums (mainly Pentax or Sony or Oly)..." In retrospect, I think there are just as many people who hate Nikon and Canon as the other three...what was I thinking?

The bottom line is a simple truth: There are people who hate some brands and spew venom in their direction.

I personally think Dayo is much worse than you are.

Neil...

I looked at your links and didn't see that Bjorn was doing anything wrong. He stated an opinion...it obviously is different than your opinion...that's OK with me. But I didn't think it was especially controversial or provocative...

Click to expand...

Thats ok, I like it that people can make up their own minds.

In his case if you follow the links far enough you will note he even does things like suggest I do not know about my OWN equipment (that is when It got to the point of asking him "are you thick or what").

Question...Do you think he did not lie when he said that he has never said that in lens stabilization is better? (nothing to do with beilefs on stabilization...just the facts...did he lie?)

He says it all the time...and always states as fact...even when actual tests saying otherwise are linked!

He frequently says other posters are lying or they type BS often when they post without evidence or state opinions as fact...how ironic.
here is the most recent...(three hours ago)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=33440999

....even when he has not got a clue.

EG

There are a few people who DO get vertigo from stabilized viewfinders (or at least who post that)...not many, but if you are "that" person...one is enough...I take them at their word unless proven otherwise...here is one of his replies to that.....
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=33105591

note also the lack of evidence to his posts (does not matter if you agree with me, i will at least provide links and state opinion AS opinion.)

He makes so many posts that sometimes seem sensible that his later ones almost seem ok though he will often revert true to form in at least part of it. Dayo on the other hand mostly does not even try to, so in that regard Bjorn is a far worse troll to me.

He has the right to post whatever rot he wants...but whenever he does others have the right to post replies that counter that.

I will limit myself to just stating my opinion in threads I want to post on that he has psoted in with his rubbish by directly countering the things I disagree with but without reverting to his tactics....or maybe i SHOULD point out how the Nikon d90 has very soft jpegs and Nikon cameras could get recalled!! (better not in case there is a problem with the K-x battery)!

neil