camera advice

[brassman]

Right now I have a 6mp canon and I like it but I want a more advanced digital slr, I know a bunch of you guys on here shoot Nikons in the D series. I would like for everyone who has one of the nikons and anyone with one of the Canon slr's and say what you like about them and what you don't. thanks in advanced

[Dbl]

brassman, try answering a few questions on how you might be using your new camera.

-What type of subjects will you be shooting, landscapes, wildlife, sports, portraits all of the above.

-How much are you willing to invest in equipment, consumer level, pro-sumer level or pro level.

This starts to narrow down the choices of what type of camera and definitely what type of lenses you will need.

All the major camera manufacturers are making quality cameras and it gets better every year. The technology is moving along at a fast rate. Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc all have different strengths and products that will fit your usage well. You will not be making a choice as simply as a compact digital camera. You are making an investment in a system.

After answering some of the questions above you can look for the features that will be important for you. ISO performance, frames per second performance, focus speed and accuracy, whether anti-shake technology will be of benefit, sensor cleaning capabilities and on and on. If you are not familar with some of these terms jump on the web and start searching some of the photography sites out there. If you get a dslr you will need some understanding of how this all works together. I can't point or link to any sites but a quick google of buying a dslr should get you to some of the larger sites.

So asking what you like and don't like about a dslr is more complicated because what is important to me for features may not be important to you and how you will use it. So think about what type of use the camera will get and then folks can give you some feedback about the type of camera they have and how those features work for them.

[polarsusd81]

A lot of us hear shoot Canon equipment and there are a few that shoot Nikon as well. I am one from the Canon camp. There are great things about both brands, but in my opinion Canon is leading the way in the DSLR marketplace. Nikon has just announced the release of the D300 and the D3 which both look to be great cameras, and a huge step in the right direction from the previous offerings. To answer that Canon announced the release of the 40D and the 1Ds Mark III after the recent release of the 1D Mark III. As far as comparing apples to apples, Canon will have the edge in the noise levels at high ISO settings. A lot of people say the Nikons fit in their hands better, more ergonomic, but this is an opinion thing here. When it comes to glass, Canon will also have the win hands down IMO. The "L" glass from Canon is nothing but supreme. I have a growing assortment of lenses from Canon including the 50 f1.4, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f4L as well as the kit lens. Canon and Nikon will also both have lens variations with an image stabilizer © or vibration reduction (N).

As far as good deals go, I would do a little searching, if you go with Canon I have seen the 40D with a 28-135 IS lens for 1500. That is a great combo and a pretty good price as well. If you wanted to upgrade imediately to L glass a 24-70 or 24-105 IS could be had for 1100-1300 respectively. Then sell the 28-135 and recoupe 300 or so and be sitting with a serious piece of equipment for 2500. I am sure you can find similar deals with Nikon equipment as well, sometimes piecing things together to get what you want works to a nice advantage. (This Canon 40D deal is something I am considering)

The only things I don't like about my Canon (Digital Rebel) are high ISO noise performance and the lack of ability to switch to AI servo focus mode. This has been long taken care of in the models since the one I have, but it bugs me with mine. Otherwise I have no complaints with it at all.

I guess the best advice I can give is make your pick based on the lenses you prefer. This goes along with what DBL said, the way you use the camera will determine the lenses and you can then figure out what you want -vs- need. The cameras are so close now that the glass is where the seperation sits IMO.

Thanks,

Tom

[brassman]

I was planning on doing mostly outdoor wildlife shots. I have been looking at the photos some of the nikon users have been taking and they are just spectacular. I guess one of my questins for the nikon users is the format for functions user friendly? my canon couldn't be easier, I want something that will be easy for me to use but still have the versatility. I want to upgrade so that I can get the good glass that comes from using dslr's. I have taken shots that if I had good glass, they would be jaw-dropping and not just good. My camera right now has pretty much all of things I would want on a dslr but just not enough power, I want a camera with about twice as much m.p. not because I can but so that I can get bigger prints. (wouldn't mind selling some). I have looked at the canon digital rebel xti but I have been very impressed with the nikon pictures being posted that I would consider a nikon as well. thanks for the input both of you posted it is appreciated.

[Steve Foss]

Brassman:

I'm a Canon shooter. Have been as long as I've been shooting (since 1980). I believe Canon offers some clear advantages over Nikon, but that's just my opinion, and should have no bearing on your decision.

It really makes no difference whether you shoot Canon or Nikon when it comes to any niche within photography. None. The images you love from the Nikon shooters you mentioned aren't great because they're using Nikon or Canon or whichever brand, but because they were taken by photographers with talent. When you're comparing the top lines of DLSR equipment, it's far less about the equipment than about the photographer.

Both brands are top notch. Both offer a very nice line of DSLR camera bodies and lenses from entry level through the professional ranks. The differences between these brands are generally small, but people who are passionate about their equipment and loyal to their brand understandably have their strong viewpoints.

My simple recommendation is to look at any new Nikon body above the D40 and any new Canon DSLR body, barring none. While the 10 Mp of the XTi or D80 may make it sound like you can get pictures nearly twice as large as a 6 Mp camera you've got, it's not so. More important is sensor size. Because you'll be going to a DSLR, the sensor is a good bit larger than your point and shoot. A 6 Mp point and shoot sensor won't deliver as nice an image as a 6 Mp larger sensor because those 6 Mp are packed into a smaller sensor on the P&S, and that increases digital noise, compromising image quality. One area where a bit higher Mp count can benefit you is in cropping an image. If you can't get close enough with the lens you have to achieve the tight look you want, you can crop a 10 Mp image more than a 6 Mp image and still acheive a decent sized print at 300 or 240 dpi.

More expensive bodies will give you more features including a faster frame-per-second rate (burst rate) and somewhat faster focusing of lenses, but the key to any type of photography is image quality, and putting money into one or two good lenses is more important than spending an extra several hundred on a body that will add some cool features but not produce better image quality.

For most avian/wildlife shooters, 400mm is considered the minimum lens focal length. I prefer zooms for the flexibility they offer because I often want an environmental portrait over a tight portrait, and zooms allow me to knock back the focal length at a moment's notice. That's why I shoot Canon's 100-400L image stabilizer. That's about $1,400. Nikon makes two zooms up to 400mm, the cheaper one being about the same money as the 100-400 Canon but with abysmally slow autofocus, the more expensive being the 200-400mm, which is about as fast focusing as the 100-400 but very much more expensive.

You can get by with shorter zooms, the 70-300 range, at the start, and decide after awhile if you're really interested in keeping on with it before spending bigger bucks on the better glass. One can accomplish surprisingly tight portraits of birds and critters with shorter focal length telephotos through careful stalking and woodscraft. One note on the 70-300 lenses, both from Canon, Nikon and third-party companies. In this area you get what you pay for, too. The so-called "consumer" grade lenses, the least expensive ones that run from $150 to $250, focus very slowly and aren't as sharp or contrasty or saturated as better lenses. If at all possible, I'd invest more money if you can in a lens one step up from this lowest level. If you go Canon, for example, Canon makes a 70-300 image stabilized lens that's still considered consumer, rather than pro, grade, but offers the IS and is nicely sharp and clear. I expect Nikon makes more than one grade of non-pro 70-300 equivalent, too. Either way, if you can manage to get to that mid-grade, you'll be able to achieve faster focus (a big deal when shooting wildlife) and somewhat better image quality (a big deal for fussy photographers.)

If you are within striking distance of camera stores, hold the Nikons in your hand and work with the controls. Do the same for the Canons. Pick whichever body feels best in your hand and you'll have made a good decision. Pay little attention to the store salesperson. Very often, they're just pushing whichever model body or lens they're overstocked on or make the biggest profit margin on.

If, after selecting a body and a lens and shooting a few thousand images, you are indeed bitten by the bug and really want to continue, that's the time to buy better glass, in my opinion. And more than anything you should just make your decision, start using the gear and have a lot of fun learning as you go. If it ain't fun, it ain't worth doing.

This is the same kind of advice I give my photo excursion clients when they ask. Hope it helps. If you choose Canon, there's a lot of help I can give you. If you choose Nikon, there's also help here from Nikon shooters. Good luck, and have a ball.

[MN Shutterbug]

Although I can't give you any advice regarding dslr cameras, I would like to give you a heads up regarding buying online, if you choose to go this route. Many people have been burned buying photo equipment online. There are many dealers out there that either bait and switch or sell partial packages and then charge extra for accessories that should have come packaged with the camera. A very common practice is to accept the order, for something that is supposed to be in stock, and then call you later and tell you they made a mistake and try and talk you into a substitute. Some will also sell gray market goods without a U.S. warrantee. Before ordering, check out resellerratings.com. Read about experiences buyers have had with the company in question. You could also probably inquire here about a specific company and someone has probably had experience with it. I'm a member of another photography forum and it's amazing how many people have been burned. It seems like there is 1 reputable dealer vs. 50 crooked ones out there. Just be careful and good luck.

[Steve Foss]

XT is right. I have been doing all my photography equipment buying online for four years from the same company (not one of the huge companies like B&H), and have had great luck with this company. But there are many crooked online sales outfits.

[minndonn]

STF I posted a couple pictures some time ago and asked why they seemed fuzzy. I Have Rebel XTi with Sigma 28-70 and Sigma 70-300 Macro lenses. These appear to be the entry levels that you talk about. I am considering upgrading the 70-300 and looking at the Cannon 70-300 IS lens that would be the one step above for about 675.00. I purchased online and I think I was taken on the two lenses. They did a good job of selling me but I did not get the good advice and discussion I would have at a local camera store. I am planning on shopping the store in Duluth now. If you buy online you better know exactly what you are looking for. I have been offered 50 to 75 as trade-in or 125.00 expected as consignment. Would appreciate any opinions.

[Steve Foss]

mindonn:

You may want to buy at that store because of the trade-in value of the lens you've got. However, where I do my business online, Canon's 70-300mm IS lens sells for only $549. U.S. lens, full Canon warranty. That's $125 less than you're looking at in the store you mentioned.

So I think it boils down to the hassle. If you buy for $550 online, you'll save over the actual purchase price in the store but will then be stuck with a lens you don't need and have to sell yourself. If you buy it at the store, you'll pay more but will get back $125 once the consignment lens sells. Ultimately, you'll save money by buying it online and selling your other lens yourself, but it may not be worth all that fooling around for you. Unless you buy online and the Duluth store will simply take your current lens and sell it on consignment. If they'll do that, you'd be in pretty good shape taking that route.

My online supplier is Canoga Camera, and if you put the dubyas in front and the usual at the end you'll find the site just fine. Shipping will be inexpensive, too, if you don't want to get it faster than UPS or FedEx ground. At the Canoga site, go to "lenses" then "Canon lenses" then "zoom lenses for general use" and scroll down until you see the 70-300 f4-f5.6 IS USM.

I would add, however, that it's not necessarily the lens itself that's causing a lack of sharpness. Lens holding technique (and plus or minus a tripod) enters prominently into that, as does shutter speed. But if you paid $150-$250 for your current 70-300, the IS lens mentioned above will provide noticeably better image quality.

Hope that helps.

[midex717]

stf,

A few more questions along the same lines. I currently own a Konica/Minolta 7D which is an orphan camera since Minolta quit the photography market. I like the camera as most of the controls that are typically menu driven i.e. iso, exposure compensation, etc. are externally located on the camera body. My only real complaint with it is that it generally yields slightly underexposed images that I usually correct by compensating by +1/3 ev. I primarily shoot photos of my family, local people when traveling, and general photography. My primary lens is a Tamron 28-300 f3.5 variable throughout. It is a good outdoor lens, but lacks the horsepower for low light situations.

I'm considering upgrading my lens situation by possibly purchasing a Tamron 17-50 2.8 aspherical lens, and a Tamron 70-200 2.8 lens when it is introduced here very shortly.

As you know, Sony produces lenses with Minolta mounts as well. Are the Sony lenses worth the much higher price? The 70-200 2.8 Sony lens is about $1500 more than the Tamron 70-200. As far as image sharpness would I be better off spending the extra money for the Sony?

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Sony line of lenses, but I would appreciate any input.

Thanks for your time!

[Steve Foss]

Midex, I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with Sony lenses. However, Tamron, when turning out lenses in the pro-quality portion of the market, seems to get consistently high marks even when compared with Canon L lenses and Nikon's top glass, and I'd be very surprised if a Sony lens in the 70-200 pro range has significantly better IQ, certainly not enough to make it worth $1,500 more than the equivalent pro-quality Tamron.

[dukhnt]

I have had my Nikon D50 for about a year. Got it for christmas. Both Nikon and Canon are excellent cameras in my opinion. The reason I asked for the Nikon was that it fit in my hand way better than the Canon. The Canon seemed really small, and I have small hands. Don't know why that is. Plus the battery life on the Nikons last a lot longer. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Most of my pictures taken on this site are shot with a Sigma 170-500mm. I was lucky enough to find one used for $350, new they are around $600. Good luck in the camera shopping, either brand you go with I am sure you will be extremely happy. Looking forward to seeing some of your pictures.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

If you like your Canon,buy a 30D and a 70-300IS. You won't be disappointed. I had that combo for a while,and it produces very good images.

For me,Canon was a no brainer:"L" glass! And another biggie: FREE customer support with knowledgeable people.

[Dbl]

Quote:

---

If you like your Canon,buy a 30D and a 70-300IS. You won't be disappointed. I had that combo for a while,and it produces very good images.

For me,Canon was a no brainer:"L" glass! And another biggie: FREE customer support with knowledgeable people.

---

I would be looking at a 40D now not the 30D. Nice improvements in a number of areas for about the same dough.

[brassman]

I went to the local photo store and asked them a few questions about the new d40 and all and about some of the glass I could get for the camera. What I didn't tell him was that I was holding it at B.B. and they had it with a lense for a pretty decent price. I liked the feel of it but it felt a little bulky. I liked the features but I didn't like that the screen was always out, I would imagine that it would get scratches in it but I suppose you have to deal with that. Otherwise I think stepping up to a DSLR that I can change the glass on and have the ability to get high quality glass, (I have a thing for buying the good stuff, you only buy it once!) the pictures I took on it in the store had a sharp quality and that is what I am looking for in a new camera. I appreciate all of the input you guys have put in this thread for me it has helped me out tremendously.

[Steve Foss]

Brassman, you didn't mention brand in your last post. So if you mean the Nikon D40, do yourself a favor and bump up to the D80 for better options and broader lens selection. If by d40 you mean the Canon 40D, you're good to go.

[brassman]

Yeah sorry it was the canon. D40 40D whats the difference besides that little company part. now its just a matter of getting the money for it. thats just a little problem, nothing to worry about. he he.

[Steve Foss]

Usually the hardest part isn't spending the money, but explaining it to the lovely wife after the fact.

[brassman]

oh but thats the sweet part, I'm a bachelor, I have no one to answer to except college tuition and truck payment and gas and ... and .... just finding the money is the hard part. dropping 1000$ in one day and I don't blink an eye but you have to have that $1000 first. Hey Steve do you think I could get by with 2 lenses for outdoor photography? one being a double digit to 200mm or 300mm lense for all around and a 100-400mm for those longer or intense narrow photos. I had between 8-12 bluejays in my apple tree today (at one time) that I wish I had a high quality camera for.

[Steve Foss]

You can surely get by with two lenses for that type of shooting. If you're buying the 100-400, however, I'd recommend coupling it with a wide angle zoom so you can take nice landscape shots. Canon makes a 17-40L that's excellent for such situations and Tamron and Sigma make equivalent lenses as well that are nice quality for a bit less $.