How did you decide?

[Down to Earth]

Seriously here, especially for the non "Canon guys" or "Nikon guys" how did you decide which DSLR to buy? I'm in the process of now of upgrading to a DSLR and the more I'm researching the harder it is getting for me to make a decision. Starting out I was kind of set on the Nikon D90, but then came across the Canon 7D. I know those two are kina apples and oranges, but it has led me to multiple hours on the computer researching Nikon and Canon body, lenses, etc. I've read countless reviews on many models and the more I read, the more I don't know what I want. So, I've read threads, I've read reviews. Can someone give me some advice on funnelling my thought process in the right direction.

Thanks.

[Steve Foss]

If you listen to all these guys and gals so wrapped up in their online camera reviews (they tend to inflate subtle performance differences), your head will continue to spin until it whirls off your neck.

Realistically, the top handful of brands are so close together performance wise that it boils down to which one feels best to you. I strongly recommend a trip to the local camera store (or if there isn't a dedicated camera store in Rochester, head to National Camera Exchange or West Photo in the Twin Cities). Put each prospective purchase in your hands and work with it. Which one has controls that are most natural to you? Which fits your hands best? Buy that one, put the very best glass you can afford on it, and don't look back.

No different than shopping around for a new full-sized pickup if you haven't owned a big one before. Test drive a few before making up your mind.

Have fun!

[Griggs]

I agree with Foss. One thing to think about is if you have any friends with a DSLR. If you buy the same brand, you can share lenses =)

[pulsar_nx]

I got my olympus E620 because of previous experience with their point & shoots and my unwillingness to spend big money on my nikon d40.

I'm happy that I made the switch though there are compromises.

The 4/3rd sensor has 2x EFL advantage in the lense but introduces a bit more noise, and the in body IS makes all of the lenses have IS but I have to hold the camera closer to the body to get better results. Mirror slap was improved alot and the glass is as good or better than nikon.

[Dbl]

I shot Pentax film cameras for 25 years so when I switched to digital I naturally went to Pentax. Very happy with my set up but I began concentrating on shooting sports. I now had a problem, Pentax had no glass that was fast and in useful focal lengths for this type of shooting. I then switched brands to Canon because at the time they had the best high ISO performance and lens cost was less compared to Nikon.

My point is give some thought to how you might be using your "system". Compare costs for the type of equipment you might need and see how it fits your budget. In my type of shooting it is not uncommon these days to actually shoot both Nikon and Canon because of strengths of the various systems. No one manufacturer makes the "perfect" setup. Most of us will never go to those lengths to get exactly what we want but it pays to consider what you might do in the future with your camera. It may help some with your choice. Just some additional points to ponder.

[Down to Earth]

If you listen to all these guys and gals so wrapped up in their online camera reviews (they tend to inflate subtle performance differences), your head will continue to spin until it whirls off your neck.

I would definitely say I'm in this stage right now. About all we'd have for a "camera store" is Best Buy and I'm not planning to buy from there. I'm in no big rush right now so I think a trip up to NCE would be time well spent.

Thanks.

[Down to Earth]

Put each prospective purchase in your hands and work with it. Which one has controls that are most natural to you? Which fits your hands best? Buy that one, put the very best glass you can afford on it, and don't look back.

Have fun!

Steve, (or any one else)

I'm really starting to come around to the Canon's especially with the thought of someday adding their 100-300 L series zoom to a body at some point down the line. I still need to go in and get a feel of some of the bodies though, but I'm starting to price out a couple options. Both are coming in around the $2300 price point. Right now my main purpose for shooting is for my kids sporting events which primarily include swimming and hockey, so indoor lower light shooting. I'd also like to get into a lot of outdoor photography as well. Here are two options I'm putting together:

1. Canon 50D (Body)

24-70 f/2.8 L EF Lens

2. Canon 7D (Body)

28-135 IS f/3.5-5.6 lens

70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens

Though it doesn't have the image stabilizing of the 28-135 lens, I think the lower f-stop in the L lens will be beneficial to me in my lower light shooting settings. Also, option 2 is coming from Best Buy and the thought of buying a camera of this nature at Best Buy makes me cringe.

Thoughts?

[Steve Foss]

I'm really starting to come around to the Canon's especially with the thought of someday adding their 100-300 L series zoom to a body at some point down the line. I still need to go in and get a feel of some of the bodies though, but I'm starting to price out a couple options. Both are coming in around the $2300 price point. Right now my main purpose for shooting is for my kids sporting events which primarily include swimming and hockey, so indoor lower light shooting. I'd also like to get into a lot of outdoor photography as well. Here are two options I'm putting together:

1. Canon 50D (Body)

24-70 f/2.8 L EF Lens

2. Canon 7D (Body)

28-135 IS f/3.5-5.6 lens

70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens

Though it doesn't have the image stabilizing of the 28-135 lens, I think the lower f-stop in the L lens will be beneficial to me in my lower light shooting settings. Also, option 2 is coming from Best Buy and the thought of buying a camera of this nature at Best Buy makes me cringe.

Thoughts?

If it wasn't for the indoor sports, I'd recommend option 2. The f2.8 help you A LOT on the swimming/hockey side (it's f2.8 throughout the lens focal range of 24-70, unlike what you get on the 28-135). And with the center focus point selected on f2.8 or wider lenses (that's almost always the focus point you'll be using), you'll get increased autofocus performance on that body, and that's a big deal in low light with moving subjects.

And your image quality on the 24-70 will be better, as well as having the "L" series rock solid build.

With swimming, you'll likely find you have enough reach with the 24-70. With hockey, you'll probably find pretty quickly you'll want more reach unless they let you shoot from ice level off the bench or the penalty box or similar area.

If you opt for the 50D/24-70, start looking for a used Canon 70-200 f2.8L non-IS. For sports, the IS isn't as big a deal because you're mostly panning with the subject as it moves along, and you'll be able to find an excellent used 70-200 f2.8L for under $1,000. That body with those lenses is a dynamite combo not only for sports, but for many, many other photo situations ranging from landscapes to family reunions.

Dbl and finnbay, whose businesses are much more sports oriented than mine, will also have advice you should listen to. I no longer make my living shooting sports, though I still dabble in it from time to time.

[finnbay]

Steve has some good advice for you. I shoot both swimming and a lot of hockey, and having the 70-200 2.8 is a wonderful lens for both. I'd have to say the 24-70 is going to be short for hockey. I've shot both the 50D and 7D for sports, and both do a very nice job. ISO performance is very good with both. The video with the 7D is nice to have if that is important to you, and does a very nice job.

As with the lens, consider buying a used camera as well. There are many good cameras that have been taken care of and have a lot of life left in them as well at a considerable savings over new. There is a 50D in the Classifieds right now ( ).

[Down to Earth]

As much as I'd like to swing the 7D, if I go with the better glass it will put me out of my current price range, so my thought process right now is go with the better glass now and upgrade the camera body down the road. Finn I can't find the specific ad for the 50D even with a search. It keeps coming up as "No Results"

Also, taking into account I'm treating the body as a short term fix how do you guys feel about the 40D? In some reviews I've read there is a tendancy to favor the 40 over the 50 and at a used price I've found on HSO-Classifieds, a nice used one could be taken for half the price of a 50 and would give me a further head start on hat 70-200 purchase.

Or would I be better off going with the 50D and substituting the 70-200 2.8 in place of the 24-70 initially with the plan of adding the 24-70 down the line. You feel the 70-200 is versatile enough? Plus it would give me better range for wildlife shots initially.

You guys are a great help. Thanks for everything. Sorry for all the questions.

[finnbay]

DTE - email me at [email protected]

[Steve Foss]

As much as I'd like to swing the 7D, if I go with the better glass it will put me out of my current price range, so my thought process right now is go with the better glass now and upgrade the camera body down the road. Finn I can't find the specific ad for the 50D even with a search. It keeps coming up as "No Results"

Also, taking into account I'm treating the body as a short term fix how do you guys feel about the 40D? In some reviews I've read there is a tendancy to favor the 40 over the 50 and at a used price I've found on HSO-Classifieds, a nice used one could be taken for half the price of a 50 and would give me a further head start on hat 70-200 purchase.

Or would I be better off going with the 50D and substituting the 70-200 2.8 in place of the 24-70 initially with the plan of adding the 24-70 down the line. You feel the 70-200 is versatile enough? Plus it would give me better range for wildlife shots initially.

You guys are a great help. Thanks for everything. Sorry for all the questions.

The preference for the 40D over the 50D among some reviewers is IMO a clear case of specifications overcoming reality. Because there are a lot more pixels crammed on the 50D sensor (which is the same size as the 40D's), there's more digital noise unless the in-camera noise reduction is used. The reviews that whine about 50D noise typically are comparing images from both cameras in which the in-camera noise reduction is turned off on the 50D. Dumb. Not using the in-camera NR is like turning off the power steering in your truck. Why do it? The image quality is nip and tuck between the two when the 50D NR is enabled, and the large number of pixels allows you to crop more away and still have a usable shot, which is one way to increase apparent magnification. There are limits to that, of course. There also are principles involved in printing that render an image that appears a bit noisy on the computer screen finer looking when printed. So many camera reviewers these days only peep at pixels on the screen before pontificating about image quality, and printing is still the measure of image quality because of its demands of higher resolution. I can take a digital image, blow it up to 200 percent on the computer screen and it looks like carp, yet that image can be a smasher printed at 13x19.

I think you have a great idea on going with the 70-200 first and adding the 24-70 later if sports is your primary focus. And I also second the used 50D. Ken (finnbay) takes EXCELLENT care of his gear. There's no need necessarily to consider the 50D a "short-term fix," either. Many pros use them. Surely the video of the 7D is desirable, and of course the "1" series bodies are smashing, but the best glass is still the way to go. I wouldn't bother upgrading your camera body until you have both the 70-200 and 24-70 and have put several thousands shots through both. This will allow you to get very familiar with the camera and lenses, and only after you gain that familiarity will you have a solid grasp on which should be your next step.

Lots of fun coming your way. Enjoy the ride.

[Dbl]

My business is sports and I own the 50D, 7D and Mark IIN. I have no problems using any of those camera bodies when paired with good lenses. My go to lens for swimming and hockey is the 70-200/2.8. I own an IS and non-IS version, really as mentioned no need for IS in most sporting situations.

The 24-70 is a lens that would definetly be secondary if you are going to start out with the intentions of shooting indoor sports. I rarely shoot anything smaller than a 70-200 unless I am using remote cameras or have a VERY specific image in mind. A lot of very good advice above.

A used camera body is an excellent way to get something with newer technology at a very good price. Heck you can even by a Mark II these days for $1000! Since your primary use appears to be indoors I would stick with a 50D for a good high ISO performer at a reasonable price point. This will give you a bit more room to pick up a 70-200/2.8. Canon came out with a new version of this lens as well so the oppurtunity to find a good clean copy is easier with some users upgrading to the new lens. Good luck with your choice!

[Down to Earth]

In what situations would the IS version be beneficial over the non IS verson of the 70-200?

Thanks.

[Steve Foss]

In what situations would the IS version be beneficial over the non IS verson of the 70-200?

Thanks.

In any situation calling for a slow shutter speed, or when a tremendously awkward handheld shooting position won't allow you to steady the lens against your body, or off a monopod or tripod. If you can afford it, you'll definitely appreciate the IS. It has a panning mode suitable for sports, as well as a mode for general shooting.

This benefits my much more than the sports guys, because I shoot a lot of weddings in churches with low light and slow shutter speeds, and the IS is what puts me over the top and allows me to get sharp images in many settings.

The 70-200 makes an excellent handheld portrait lens as well, with its wide aperture and nice focal length range. IS is handy in some situations there, too.

Used, the IS version will run you about $300 more than an equivalent condition non IS version. The best used outlet for Canon gear is Photography on the Net. Very active and reliable Canon buy/sell board there. Because of the new 70-200 f2.8L IS Mk2 that Dan mentioned, folks have been unloading the Mk 1 for less than they used to. The Mk 1 is one of Canon's all-time best professional lenses, in the opinions of me and many other pro shooters, and it's what I use for most wedding telephoto work. Also, because people are unloading their Mk 1 versions less expensively, there are more of the non IS versions out there, and for less than they used to bring. Trickle-down economics, you know.

[JohnK]

Seriously here, especially for the non "Canon guys" or "Nikon guys" how did you decide which DSLR to buy?

My uncle has been a Nikon shooter for many years, that very strongly influenced me to go towards Nikon. My first DSLR, a D80, had controls very similar to the Panasonic FZ30 I'd been shooting, that had a strong influence as well because it made the Nikon feel more natural to me than the Canons.

Today I think that Nikon makes better bodies, but Canon has a better and cheaper, lens lineup. Next year Canon might have better bodies, but they'll still almost certainly have a broader and less expensive (especially at the long end) lens lineup.

It would be extremely difficult to point to either brand and objectively say "X is better than Y" unless you limited it to a specific set of conditions, and then you could easily say either is better.

Whichever brand you choose don't get disappointed if your first shots don't knock your socks off. A DSLR is capable of amazing photos but there can be a pretty steep learning curve.