Going D-SLR, But Which One?
Discussion
F1sh said:
Master Yoghurt, so which was you recommending??? The Nikon or the Minolta?
Fish
Master Fish, recommending the Nikon was I. We members of the lightside only use Nikons. Have our own CLUD we do, a membershit certificate we have. The Dark Sdie are all Canon users and have no official Club.
simpo two said:
Yoghurt old chap, I fear your quaint banter may be deterring new members labouring under the entirely understandable and not altogeher transient illusion that you are totally strange and barking...?
Hang on...illusion?!? No-one can come out with that much twaddle and remain sane...oh, hang on, I've just looked at some of my old posts...
Simpo...good advice, thanks. My photography falls largely into two categories:-
- Motorsport/Airshows;
- Landscapes.
Most of the close-up stuff with friends and family is currently done with a little digital, where I don't need the advantages of an SLR (OK, may change a bit, but I still think that'll be secondary).
So I'm looking for both high "shutter speed" and rapid cycle on one hand, and good depth of field and colour resolution on the other.
If the D70 and 10D are older cameras, what's about now in the £500-700 range (before lenses...realise I need a good lens)?
Forget the rest, buy the 20D, get a 70-200f2.8L and a 1.4 or 2x Convertor and you're set.
Lost count of the number of D70 owners who went green listening to my 20D hammering out shots at Croft over the weekend haha.
All i need to do is trade up from my Sigma 135-400 to something white & Canon and i'll be laughing.
Lost count of the number of D70 owners who went green listening to my 20D hammering out shots at Croft over the weekend haha.
All i need to do is trade up from my Sigma 135-400 to something white & Canon and i'll be laughing.
The whole thing with cameras is so personal that you must try them all, feel them in your hands. After that it is usualy quite an easy decision.
Don't be swayed by other peoples brand loyalty(worship), get what is right for you. Weigh up things like how the camera feels in your hands...is it too small/too big/ just right? Do the buttons and dials feel nice and are they in the right place? Is the menu system logical/confusing? Also, if you think you will progress in photography, and unless money is no object, see how similar lenses compare costwise between different producers. HTH.
Martin.
PS - Or you could save yourself a shedload of time and get a Canon 20D tomorrow and start taking quality photos straight away!
Don't be swayed by other peoples brand loyalty(worship), get what is right for you. Weigh up things like how the camera feels in your hands...is it too small/too big/ just right? Do the buttons and dials feel nice and are they in the right place? Is the menu system logical/confusing? Also, if you think you will progress in photography, and unless money is no object, see how similar lenses compare costwise between different producers. HTH.
Martin.
PS - Or you could save yourself a shedload of time and get a Canon 20D tomorrow and start taking quality photos straight away!
havoc said:
My photography falls largely into two categories:-
- Motorsport/Airshows;
- Landscapes.
Most of the close-up stuff with friends and family is currently done with a little digital, where I don't need the advantages of an SLR (OK, may change a bit, but I still think that'll be secondary).
So I'm looking for both high "shutter speed" and rapid cycle on one hand, and good depth of field and colour resolution on the other.
If the D70 and 10D are older cameras, what's about now in the £500-700 range (before lenses...realise I need a good lens)?
Sensible questions. Starting at the beginning:
Landscapes are no problem with anything. You've got plenty of time to plan and compose; the main factor here is probably wide-angle lenses more than the camera body. So that requirement doesn't narrow the choice down much.
Motorsport/Airshows. Now we're getting more demanding. Personally I don't believe max shutter speed is such a deal here. No point in freezing action all the time; your racing car will simply look like it's parked, and your planes will have fixed propellers. More important, IMHO, is focusing speed (a lens function) and focus tracking. Trouble is, to do this kind of stuff like the pros, you'll need to spend several £Ks, so everything is a compromise. I'm not so bother by frame buffer (how many shots it takes before stopping for breath) because if your timing is so bad that you need that many shots, get a camcorder
Friends and family - an AF-S lens and no shutter lag (a BIG difference between compacts and DSLRs) is always helpful to catch those mischievous expressions!
Good depth of field = small aperture, ie a function of the lens, so no big deal in your considerations at this stage.
Colour resolution - a function of image processing, either in-camera JPG or your computer if your shoot RAW.
£500-£700: Canon 350D, Nikon D70, D70s, Minolta 5D, 7D. Maybe oddballs like Fuji and Sigma too but not sure. Tine to hit the internet and see what's about.
For teccy stuff, www.dpreview.com has everything you need.
NB You will no doubt find yourself building up an SLR system (as money permits), of which the body is the hub but the lenses make much of the difference. Your collection of lenses will probably end up being worth more than the body. For best value I would steer you towards the Sigma HSM range.
simpo two said:I would beg to differ on this point. I come across the (admittedly small) buffer limit on my 300D every now and then and it can be frustrating. And it's usually motorsport or wildlife (and as I found out on Saturday airshows) where picture after picture is appearing in the viewfinder as the pack/display team/flock fly past but the camera's still too busy writing to card to allow you to shoot any more.
I'm not so bother by frame buffer (how many shots it takes before stopping for breath) because if your timing is so bad that you need that many shots, get a camcorder
If you're intending to shoot motorsports and airshows, then I'd say that as long as you go for one of the bodies mentioned already (Nikon, Canon etc...) then you'll be OK, however it is the lens that is the most important part of the equation.
As suggested already, the key thing in choosing a body is to try them out in your hand and see how they feel. Try a few tests like shooting continuously (using the same memory card, as these can affect the performance) to get an idea of it's max burst rate, and also see how the autofocus behaves when you set it to continuous focus mode and move the lens from a nearby subject to one further away and vice versa.
Other factors like minimum and maximum ISO settings and battery life are important too, so worth comparing.
For both motorsports and airshows, you'll ideally want a fast (smaller f number e.g., f2.8 or f4) and long lens (bigger mm number e.g., 400mm). Unfortunately, these are big, expensive and heavy, so most lenses available are a compromise in at least one of these areas.
I'd say that Canon produce the best lenses for this sort of photography (check out the number of motorsports photographers using Canon vs Nikon!), as many of their longer lenses have a feature called IS (Image Stabilisation) which means you can still get sharp images with slower shutter speeds than with non-IS lenses.
Nikon have recently introduced a handful of lenses with a similar feature too, but these are still quite pricey. Sigma lenses are cheaper than Nikon and Canon, so good value for money, but none of their lenses have image stabilisation.
When I bought my camera, I first looked at what lenses I wanted, and then bought the body to go with them, which has worked out well as they have ended up costing several times more than I've spent on camera bodies.
So... don't make a decision based on people here saying "Canon are great" or "Nikon is the best". Try the bodies out yourselves, but bear in mind that the body is useless without a suitable lens and these can end up costing far more than the body, so researching these is just as important as buying the body.
As suggested already, the key thing in choosing a body is to try them out in your hand and see how they feel. Try a few tests like shooting continuously (using the same memory card, as these can affect the performance) to get an idea of it's max burst rate, and also see how the autofocus behaves when you set it to continuous focus mode and move the lens from a nearby subject to one further away and vice versa.
Other factors like minimum and maximum ISO settings and battery life are important too, so worth comparing.
For both motorsports and airshows, you'll ideally want a fast (smaller f number e.g., f2.8 or f4) and long lens (bigger mm number e.g., 400mm). Unfortunately, these are big, expensive and heavy, so most lenses available are a compromise in at least one of these areas.
I'd say that Canon produce the best lenses for this sort of photography (check out the number of motorsports photographers using Canon vs Nikon!), as many of their longer lenses have a feature called IS (Image Stabilisation) which means you can still get sharp images with slower shutter speeds than with non-IS lenses.
Nikon have recently introduced a handful of lenses with a similar feature too, but these are still quite pricey. Sigma lenses are cheaper than Nikon and Canon, so good value for money, but none of their lenses have image stabilisation.
When I bought my camera, I first looked at what lenses I wanted, and then bought the body to go with them, which has worked out well as they have ended up costing several times more than I've spent on camera bodies.
So... don't make a decision based on people here saying "Canon are great" or "Nikon is the best". Try the bodies out yourselves, but bear in mind that the body is useless without a suitable lens and these can end up costing far more than the body, so researching these is just as important as buying the body.
Cheers guys!
I was figuring lenses would be important in this...another thread, some more questions another time, methinks...i'm too ignorant now to ask the right questions, so i'll do research first!
(Has anyone noticed this thread hijack?!? Sorry F1sh!
)
Shutter speed...interesting point...is that something you can manually adjust on many D-SLRs?!? I can see some interesting effects...d'oh, of course it is, ignore me...typing as I think!!!
And no-lag...absolutely...that's the killer with my D-compact...led to some great photo's of scenery at Goodwood!
Frame buffer...I'd side with lexSport here...I'd far rather keep the hammer down and take 6-10 in a row, then sort out the good ones later...at Goodwood I was next to a guy doing just that, it seemed an eminently sensible thing to have. Although I could just get "faster" memory (Don't SanDisk do a 20MB/s card) to compensate, i guess.
Image stabilisation? I don't have £££ here...I'm purely a rank-amateur getting started in D-SLR territory, my current tool is an ancient Canon T70 with a 35-70 and a 70-210 (both Pentax), neither lens anything especial.
In the long-term, maybe I'll splash out, but for now I think a decent 28-200 or 18-200 for ground work, and maybe a xx-300 for airshows will be plenty.
I'm looking to change mainly because my dominant eye is short-sighted and I'm finding I'm often "just" out of focus, which spoils some otherwise nicely set-up shots...about 40% of the Goodwood photos are so-afflicted, which given I took a 35mm SLR and only limited rolls of film means I've "lost" the only photos I took of some rare cars...
I was figuring lenses would be important in this...another thread, some more questions another time, methinks...i'm too ignorant now to ask the right questions, so i'll do research first!
(Has anyone noticed this thread hijack?!? Sorry F1sh!
) Shutter speed...interesting point...is that something you can manually adjust on many D-SLRs?!? I can see some interesting effects...d'oh, of course it is, ignore me...typing as I think!!!
And no-lag...absolutely...that's the killer with my D-compact...led to some great photo's of scenery at Goodwood!
Frame buffer...I'd side with lexSport here...I'd far rather keep the hammer down and take 6-10 in a row, then sort out the good ones later...at Goodwood I was next to a guy doing just that, it seemed an eminently sensible thing to have. Although I could just get "faster" memory (Don't SanDisk do a 20MB/s card) to compensate, i guess.
Image stabilisation? I don't have £££ here...I'm purely a rank-amateur getting started in D-SLR territory, my current tool is an ancient Canon T70 with a 35-70 and a 70-210 (both Pentax), neither lens anything especial.
In the long-term, maybe I'll splash out, but for now I think a decent 28-200 or 18-200 for ground work, and maybe a xx-300 for airshows will be plenty.
I'm looking to change mainly because my dominant eye is short-sighted and I'm finding I'm often "just" out of focus, which spoils some otherwise nicely set-up shots...about 40% of the Goodwood photos are so-afflicted, which given I took a 35mm SLR and only limited rolls of film means I've "lost" the only photos I took of some rare cars...
havoc said:
Frame buffer...I'd side with lexSport here...I'd far rather keep the hammer down and take 6-10 in a row, then sort out the good ones later...
That's cool, it depends on your subject and style. But if you 'keep the hammer down' your vision will be interrupted by the mirror, and your camera's focus tracking may not be able to keep up with a fast moving object. Just being negative; I'm more of a sniper than a machine gunner
havoc said:
In the long-term, maybe I'll splash out, but for now I think a decent 28-200 or 18-200 for ground work, and maybe a xx-300 for airshows will be plenty.
OK. But due to the crop factor, you'll need at least 18mm to get the same angle of view that you had with 28mm. So since you're not looking at mega-lenses, one Nikon advantage is that their 18-70mm AF-S 'kit' lens is very good (£199 if bought seperately). Add to that a 70-300 (£99 - £250) and you've got most stuff covered.
havoc said:
I'm looking to change mainly because my dominant eye is short-sighted and I'm finding I'm often "just" out of focus, which spoils some otherwise nicely set-up shots...
Ah yes, AF is wonderful. That saves the need to have 20:20 vision to take sharp photos, though it still helps to see what you're looking at! I can't speak for the other makes but the D70 has viewfinder correction so you can still see if you're caught without specs or contacts.
Fun isn't it!
Havoc, I'm not sure its been hijacked. This is all interesting stuff, and so of related to what I need to know.
As I said at the start, I have been using a point and click and wish to progress. Most of the camera's being talking about are classed as the entry level for D-SLR's (other than the 20D).
Fish
As I said at the start, I have been using a point and click and wish to progress. Most of the camera's being talking about are classed as the entry level for D-SLR's (other than the 20D).
Fish
Just about to delve into the dSLR market myself. Was choosing between the 350 and d70 and went for the former.
Both are amazing cameras and you can't really go wrong with either. Alot of people who compare the two and go for the d70 do so, soley because of its feel/handling. I prefered the compact size of the canon and the fact (IMO) it isconsiderably lighter.
Specs are tit for tat. Generally they are very similar but where one looses out in a single area, it gains in another.
I also went for the canon based on all reviews i've read in magazines and web. Lastly its because I feel i'm buying into a superior brand that progress/develop/build their technology and products better/quicker than anyone else. All in my opinion of course.
Not knocking the D70 and Nikon of course but this is my view.
At the end of the day, go into a shop and have a play with both of them. I wouldn't recommend any other new cameras in your price range.
Both are amazing cameras and you can't really go wrong with either. Alot of people who compare the two and go for the d70 do so, soley because of its feel/handling. I prefered the compact size of the canon and the fact (IMO) it isconsiderably lighter.
Specs are tit for tat. Generally they are very similar but where one looses out in a single area, it gains in another.
I also went for the canon based on all reviews i've read in magazines and web. Lastly its because I feel i'm buying into a superior brand that progress/develop/build their technology and products better/quicker than anyone else. All in my opinion of course.
Not knocking the D70 and Nikon of course but this is my view.
At the end of the day, go into a shop and have a play with both of them. I wouldn't recommend any other new cameras in your price range.
I looked at both but went for the Minolta instead. Image stabilising within the body was a big factor for me. Both Canon and Nikon put the image stabilising in the lens which makes for some expensive lens purchases to get the same spec. Minor niggles were the lack of spot metering on the Canon and no ISO 100 on the Nikon. Nikons proprietary RAW format seemed a bit tricky too, with a few bits of software being fussy about it.
Jenny Taillier said:
Minor niggles were the lack of spot metering on the Canon and no ISO 100 on the Nikon. Nikons proprietary RAW format seemed a bit tricky too, with a few bits of software being fussy about it.
In-body stabilisation is certainly a clever move. I don't suppose Canon and Nikon will adopt it as it will kill sales of their IS and VR lenses. However I wouldn't be too worried about the Nikon RAW (NEF) format - Adobe launches updates fairly quickly to deal with new file types. Not everyone shoots RAW anyway; for 99% of my work it's more hassle than its worth.
mindgam3 said:
I prefered the compact size of the canon and the fact (IMO) it isconsiderably lighter.
But also make sure to remember that if you have a 300mm-ish lens hanging off the body, the 350D's lightness will not matter much... Unless of course you're talking about the body color. In which case the Canon will always be lighter
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff