Decisions Decisions -> New SLR Purchase

Tom Vervaeke

Okay, I need some guidance on picking a new SLR. A few years ago I had a D100 and a slew of glass. Sold it all because it was just too much to lug around all the time. Was worried about: weight, cost, theft, etc.. and just ended up not taking the SLR as much as I had planned. Use a Canon G6 now for most stuff and a S500 for use on the bike.

This summer I am taking 3 months off and heading to Alaska. By truck. I will have plenty of room and security now to lug along a SLR and a few lenses.

I liked my Nikon D100 a lot and the lenses worked fine. Mostly had AF-S.

The new Canon's seem very nice as well. Held a 20D in my hands at a big box store yesterday just to get the feel of it.

Will more than likely buy the camera from B&H as I like their prices and service.

So... with the caveats that I'm taking my trip of a lifetime this summer (I turn 50 in July), have the room, have some $$ around, and do utilize at least 50% of the features of a SLR, what would you recommend?

1. D100 used? (Can you find them new any longer?)
2. D70
3. D200 new
4. 10D
5. 20D

And, if you were taking, say, just 2 lenses in your camera bag, what would you take? If Nikon, probably AF-S, Canon's are L's?

Thanks,

Tom

zigzag

Hi Tom. You have all good choices in Cameras. Many others will tell you which one is right, but I'll just say you won't go wrong with any of these.

Only 2 lenses for travel? I can offer the following Nikon set then:

18-200 VR2 - perhaps the perfect travel lens, a 10X zoom with surprisingly good optics and VR2 gets you a big advantage over older VR systems.
50 f/1.8 (or perhaps Sigma 30mm 1.4 for more $$) - for low light and shallow DOF situations.


Total price for the two lenses: $850. Total weight: less than 1.5 pounds. I doubt you can find a better 1-2 punch for travel anywhere.

Red Baron

You can expect most users to recommend their current camera brand and I'll be no different. I suggest adding the just-released Canon 30D to your list. I have the 20D and it's a awsome camera so either the 20D or the 30D will serve you well. As to glass, I'd look at the 24-105IS as my walk around lens and add an ultra wide (Tokina 12-24 or the Canon 10-22) and a long zoom (Canon 100-400) to the mix. The 580EX flash should also be considered. Did you say money was no object?:):

Harryb

Hey Tom,

There are still a few used D100s being offered up at various sites but I would go for a newer model. As i have said before I think the Nikon D200 is the best buy out there as it gives you the best feature set for your $ of any camera out there.

The lens choices are way too many w/o further info from you (i.e. what kind of shooting do you plan on doing and how much are you willing to spend for the glass).

An excellent pairing is the Nikon 17-55mm F2.8 and the Nikon VR 70-200mm F.2.8, It is also quite expensive.

ziggy53

Tom,

Since you had and liked the Nikon D100, I imagine you would love the Nikon D200. It is a substantial upgrade, without the substantial upgrade in price.

Depending on where you go in Alaska, and how far off the beaten path, there are tremendous vistas and landscapes to be had. I think the two that HarryB mentioned are classic high-quality lenses, that you can't go too far wrong with. I would also recommend a third lens, a super-wide. The Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX has excellent ratings, but you might also consider the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM. I would also recommend the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D AF for low-light, 2-3 stops better than we just dicussed.

This is one of the "dream" systems I hope to be able to assemble one day.

Allow yourself ample time to test the system prior to leaving, because some have issues with a "banding" problem in high-contrast situations, and you will have enough resolution to possibly have to juggle a couple copies of lenses, before you have a match for the body. (I'm not saying you will have problems, but some have had problems.)

Most importantly, take plenty of gorgeous photos to share with us here, especially those who live vicariously through other's trips and images (like me).

Thanks,

ziggy53

ed_h

personally i would go with a D50 and the new af-s nikkor 18-200 mm lens
ed

Jeffro

Canon or.....?
You do know you asked a loaded question right?

I have been shooting Canon since way back when, starting with an AE-1 Program. I now shoot with the equipment listed below, so I too will tell you Canon. I know both Canon and Nikon are great products, so in the end you will have to go touch them, and see what appeals to you more.

I say the new 30D would be the way to go, if you want to add some reach to your lenses, but the 5D would give you that true 35mm film feel, and keep the wide lenses wide.

For lenses, if only two, you could do the 24-105L IS and the 70-200L in either the f2.8 or the f4. Or you could just carry one, the 28-300L IS. Either way I agree with you, B&H is the way to go.

Whatever you decide, be sure to let us see the results, when you get back!:D

chuckice

I would spend as little as possible and keep the weight low until you're certain that you're back in the game. I'd second the recommendations above...get a D50 + Nikon 50/1.4 or 1.8.

Red Bull

I would suggest a 20D (or a new 30D if the extra $ isn't a problem) with a 17-40 f/4L, 70-200L any of the three, depending on what you need (f/4, f/2.8, f/2.8 w/ IS), and then a 50 1.4.

swintonphoto

I agree with what some have said - You won't really go wrong with any of the options. All good cameras. However, I would mention considering the Olympus E-500. It is 8 mp. The two lens kit comes with a 14-45 (28-90 35mm equivalent) and 40-150 (80-300 35mm equivalent) for around $799. I have one, and have been very impressed with the build quality, image quality, and multitude of features it provides. It is light, tough, and fast. It also has the Olympus dust reduction system keeping your sensor cleaner than other cameras. Olympus lenses are well built, and are good quality. Just another camera one to consider in the mix. I love mine, a great tool.

Tom Vervaeke

Thanks so far
Thanks for the advise so far. Here's a few more thoughts:

1. I prefer the "feel" of the Nikon over the Canon. I'm also familiar with the control knobs and such on the Nikons.

2. I held a 20D, 30D, and 5D yesterday and they all felt okay in the hands.

3. I held a D200 yesterday but it was not available for purchase. All local retailers here are just fulfillling pre-ordered units now. It did feel very nice. Local price is $1699 for the body.

[Promise Not To Laugh.. ]

4. I held a D2X which really impressed me. It felt just like a F5 to me. Local price is $4999 but Nikon has a $500 mail-in rebate now and local small camera shop where I've bought before offered an in-store discount of $300. I think, with a little pushing, that I could get that up to $500 or so which would bring the price down to $4K + tax.

5. For lenses I'd probably just walk out of the store with a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 to use to learn the camera. Previously my MOST used piece of glass was my AF-S 28-70 F2.8. It was a bit heavy but worked for a lot of what I do which is primarily people and buildings and such.

So, I know it would be insanity to purchase a D2X, but man that thing felt like it could fall out of an airplane and keep working. It's way overkill but right now it's speaking to me.

I found a few used ones on Ebay from private sellers < 1 year old for as low as $3500 or so. Very leery about buying a used Nikon.

Thoughts Round #2?

Tom

MarkM6

If I may say so...
What I am about to say may set off arguments... then again, it is only my opinion.

If you enjoy looking at the camera (and lenses) get a Nikon, however if you want to enjoy the pictures, get a Canon.

To me Nikon is more like Mercedes; superb built quality. Canon on the other hand is like a BMW; once you drive it, you are hooked, because it is the "Ultimate Driving Machine."

You are already looking at D2X, then Canon's 1-Series' built quality is right there.... Get a Canon.

My $0.02...

Tom Vervaeke

MarkM6 wrote:

What I am about to say may set off arguments... then again, it is only my opinion.

If you enjoy looking at the camera (and lenses) get a Nikon, however if you want to enjoy the pictures, get a Canon.

To me Nikon is more like Mercedes; superb built quality. Canon on the other hand is like a BMW; once you drive it, you are hooked, because it is the "Ultimate Driving Machine."

You are already looking at D2X, then Canon's 1-Series' built quality is right there.... Get a Canon.

My $0.02...

Mark:

Thanks, but the BMW analogy kills it for me. dunno

I've owned 4 BMW motorcycles (still own and ride 2 of them today) and while they are nicely engineered, they are semi-poorly assembled and dealing with BMW is always an issue. Have never owned a BMW or Mercedes car. I like my BMW bike as it works well for what I need it to do, else I would not. If Toyota made motorcycles I'd own one...

Input appreciated.

T.

MarkM6

That is what I am saying...

Tom Vervaeke wrote:

they are nicely engineered, they are semi-poorly assembled...

So is Canon until you start looking at their 1-Series. However, if you think that Canon's 1-Series camera doesn't meet your built-quality standard, I have nothing further to say.

I am a BMW M3 fan and own all 3 generations of M3's. Built quality is slightly less than Acura at nearly half the price of a M3.... then you made the mistake of driving an M3 and you know where the extra money went.

: By the way, my "built-quality standard" is Leica M Rangefinders and the M-mount lenses.

Tom Vervaeke

MarkM6 wrote:

So is Canon until you start looking at their 1-Series. However, if you think that Canon's 1-Series camera doesn't meet your built-quality standard, I have nothing further to say.

I am a BMW M3 fan and own all 3 generations of M3's. Built quality is slightly less than Acura at nearly half the price of a M3.... then you made the mistake of driving an M3 and you know where the extra money went.

: By the way, my "built-quality standard" is Leica M Rangefinders and the M-mount lenses.

Mark:

I have no identified build-quality standards in a camera. My point was that the D2X felt like a tank. It felt like it may last a lifetime.

Glad you enjoy your M3's. I've driven one and they are fantastic. My passion lies in motorcycle riding and my auto's are just practical transportation to me.

I'm not even sure what a Leica M Rangefinder is...

T.

MarkM6

Hmmmmm

Tom Vervaeke wrote:

I'm not even sure what a Leica M Rangefinder is...

Tom, I did have a feeling that I am explaining what the red color is to a blind person.

Leica M is like a MotoGP bike...

kini62

Tom Vervaeke wrote:

Thanks for the advise so far. Here's a few more thoughts:


[Promise Not To Laugh.. ]

4. I held a D2X which really impressed me. It felt just like a F5 to me. Local price is $4999 but Nikon has a $500 mail-in rebate now and local small camera shop where I've bought before offered an in-store discount of $300. I think, with a little pushing, that I could get that up to $500 or so which would bring the price down to $4K + tax.

Tom

Not laughing at all. If you have the money, buy what you want. Don't settle for something that you "might" like or want.

I did that with my first (and only, so far) DSLR. I wish I would've been able to afford what I really wanted at the time.

I use my camera 95% for taking pics of my kids and if I were buying a camera today it would be a D2X.

Nothing wrong with wanting the best<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Tom Vervaeke wrote:

I found a few used ones on Ebay from private sellers < 1 year old for as low as $3500 or so. Very leery about buying a used Nikon.
Tom

There was one on ebay for $3350 with a reported 750 actuations that included an extended warranty and Nikon Capture 4 (or whatever their $99 software is called) seemed like a good deal and if I had the money I would buy it, but I have to wait until at least the beginning of next year to fullfill my D2X lust:cry

Buy what you want if you can. If not you'll likely be second guessing your decison and wondering what if.

D2X dude!!<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/bowdown.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Gene

Jeffro

Tom Vervaeke wrote:

[Promise Not To Laugh.. ]

4. I held a D2X which really impressed me. It felt just like a F5 to me. Local price is $4999 but Nikon has a $500 mail-in rebate now and local small camera shop where I've bought before offered an in-store discount of $300. I think, with a little pushing, that I could get that up to $500 or so which would bring the price down to $4K + tax.

Thoughts Round #2?

Tom

I wish I had that kind of problem.... ?

Because if I did I would run right out and get me a Canon 1Ds Mark II!

In the end it's probably too close to call, so get what you like, or what you feel you're drawn to.

Either way, you win!

Harryb

Hi Tom,

I've been shooting with the D2X and if you can afford one it's a marvelous piece of equipment. The AF is extremely fast, the color rendition marvelous, WB is the best on any camera I've used so far, and the details are superb.

It is built like a tank and it just feels right in your hands. You will be one happy camper if you buy one.

OTH, the Canons are fine pieces of equipment also. My consistent advice to folks asking the eternal question of which camera is always the same -
"The one that feels right in your hands".

I just feel that you work better with the camera which operates most naturally with you. You can't lose whatever way you go.

ed_h

Tom Vervaeke wrote:

Mark:

Thanks, but the BMW analogy kills it for me. dunno

I've owned 4 BMW motorcycles (still own and ride 2 of them today) and while they are nicely engineered, they are semi-poorly assembled and dealing with BMW is always an issue. Have never owned a BMW or Mercedes car. I like my BMW bike as it works well for what I need it to do, else I would not. If Toyota made motorcycles I'd own one...

Input appreciated.

T.

And you're going to Alaska in a truck??
ed

chuckice

MarkM6 wrote:

If you enjoy looking at the camera (and lenses) get a Nikon, however if you want to enjoy the pictures, get a Canon.

The most ridiculous thing I've read on this board...

I just HATE looking at the pix from my Nikon D70, D200 and D2X!!!! !








And WHY won't it take a sharp picture!!??!!

Harryb

The most ridiculous thing I've read on this board...

I don't know about that because there is some real tough competition for that honor but with the thrust of your response.

Tom Vervaeke

ed_h wrote:

And you're going to Alaska in a truck??
ed

Yes, I'm going in a truck. For 3+ months. It can rain in Alaska for 3-10 days at a time. It can be pretty cold up in Deadhorse, even in the warmest part of summer. I can't take a kayak or mountain bike on my big street bike. I can't take a big enough stove, or food, or water, or .... to suit my living cheap for 3+ months. I will be living and camping and recreating in/from my truck. I plan on driving to remote parts of Alaska to see wildlife. To hike, fish, and read books.

My wife will fly up and join me for 2 weeks and we'll go sea kayaking and mountain biking and hiking over Chilkoot (sp) pass.

Hard to do that from a motorcycle. Food and lodging in the summer season is extremely expensive in Alaska. I plan on living cheap and really enjoying myself. I can do that better from a truck.

Best of luck to you on your bike.

Tom

ed_h

Tom Vervaeke wrote:

Yes, I'm going in a truck.

Best of luck to you on your bike.

Tom

Thanks, and of course from a practical point of view you're right, our last trip there in '01 we spent two weeks traveling on a GS and more than once we looked enviously at campers in vans camped in pull-outs having a coffee or something while we rode on looking somewhere dry to stay. to keep this on topic we discover there would have to be probably more picture taking opps per mile of road than just about any place that i can think of.
ed

MarkM6

Arrrrrrrr....

Harryb wrote:

I don't know about that because there is some real tough competition for that honor

:tough
lets see low light, high iso, shots from Nikon...

2nd Edit: I have asked for such pictures before I sold my 2 months old D200. No one answered my last call. I hope to see it this time.

Tom Vervaeke

ed_h wrote:

Thanks, and of course from a practical point of view you're right, our last trip there in '01 we spent two weeks traveling on a GS and more than once we looked enviously at campers in vans camped in pull-outs having a coffee or something while we rode on looking somewhere dry to stay. to keep this on topic we discover there would have to be probably more picture taking opps per mile of road than just about any place that i can think of.
ed

Ed:

I ride 20-30K miles on my bikes in an average year. I'd love to go to Alaska on my bike but it's just not practical. However, I WILL be the guy who offers a hot cup of coffee to any cold, soggy bikers I see passing by.

Back on topic: I played extensively with a 20D today and tried to learn a bit about Canon lenses. There's a lot to learn. The real, actual problem, which is not really a problem at all, is that there are just a LOT of fine DSLR's out on the market now with full feature sets and fair prices.

On the other hand, even some of the mid to high end P&S cameras can take some good shots. Even my Canon G6 can do RAW mode now. The photo listed below (not sure if we're supposed to put photo's here) was shot in CA with an older 3.2MP Canon P&S. I have it printed out at 8x10", matted, and it hangs on my den wall. I get favorable comments all the time. It wasn't even taken with a SLR.



At my level of photography, the very limiting factor is ME, not my equipment.

Tom

Harryb

MarkM6 wrote:

:tough
lets see low light, high iso, shots from Nikon...

2nd Edit: I have asked for such pictures before I sold my 2 months old D200. No one answered my last call. I hope to see it this time.

Here's a link to some shots taken at ISO 1600. It took me about 3 minutes to find them. You are own from this point on.

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=66586

chuckice

MarkM6 wrote:

:tough
lets see low light, high iso, shots from Nikon...

2nd Edit: I have asked for such pictures before I sold my 2 months old D200. No one answered my last call. I hope to see it this time.

Here's a bunch from a friend of a friend...do a search and you'll find plenty.
http://drip01.smugmug.com/gallery/1197519

Making a comment like "if you want to love your pictures buy a Canon"? :spam

MrBook2

MarkM6 wrote:

What I am about to say may set off arguments... then again, it is only my opinion.

If you enjoy looking at the camera (and lenses) get a Nikon, however if you want to enjoy the pictures, get a Canon.

....

My $0.02...

Actually, if you want to enjoy the pictures, take pictures of things you enjoy. (Just my $0.02!)

It has been said before, but given the high quality of so many cameras these days, one of the most important things is how the camera feels to you. You are going to be be using it a lot (hopefully!) so it should feel right in your hands. When I was buying my DSLR, I had basically two choices given my budget; the D70 and the Digital Rebel. I just didn't like the way the Rebel felt. I haven't regretted my decision to go with the D70. It fits me well.

As for your lens question, given that I have a Nikon, the two lenses that I would have if travelling would be the Nikon 18-200mm VR and a Nikon 50mm 1.4 or 1.8. The 18-200 is (by all accounts I have read) a great all around lens and Nikons 50mm are good solid primes. Small, lightweight, and a good all purpose focal length.

Since we are all talking hardware, I recently stumbled across these thoughts on the subject:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

http://www.thelightandtheland.com/pages/Misc/thoughts.html

--Aaron

MarkM6

One last time, I say this...

chuckice wrote:

Here's a bunch from a friend of a friend...do a search and you'll find plenty.
http://drip01.smugmug.com/gallery/1197519

Making a comment like "if you want to love your pictures buy a Canon"? :spam

Chuckice and Harry,
What I said was not intended to make Nikon lesser than what it is. In fact it came up as a "back-handed compliment". If you are taking what I said personally, I have nothing to add to it. It was not the intension.

Both of your photographic skills are way better than mine. Photos from people like you have inspired me to take pictures.

The pictures in the above links are, in my opinion, not the low light situation. They both were in sport arenas, i.e., today's indoor lightings are very close to the daylight.

Chuckice's avatar picture seems more interesting since I am seeing that there is a wider dynamic range at low light. I enjoy pictures with high dynamic range. And those pictures weren't PhotoChoped I am impressed with the camera.

I had difficult time with the D200 (with 17-55mm f2.8 DX) and it's metering. I have never own a Canon until now, so you can perhaps imagine what kind of expectations I had from Nikon.

I believe that I will not say anything more about the Nikon on DGrin.:uhoh

chuckice

MarkM6 wrote:

Chuckice and Harry,
What I said was not intended to make Nikon lesser than what it is. In fact it came up as a "back-handed compliment". If you are taking what I said personally, I have nothing to add to it. It was not the intension.

Both of your photographic skills are way better than mine. Photos from people like you have inspired me to take pictures.

The pictures in the above links are, in my opinion, not the low light situation. They both were in sport arenas, i.e., today's indoor lightings are very close to the daylight.

Chuckice's avatar picture seems more interesting since I am seeing that there is a wider dynamic range at low light. I enjoy pictures with high dynamic range. And those pictures weren't PhotoChoped I am impressed with the camera.

I had difficult time with the D200 (with 17-55mm f2.8 DX) and it's metering. I have never own a Canon until now, so you can perhaps imagine what kind of expectations I had from Nikon.

I believe that I will not say anything more about the Nikon on DGrin.:uhoh

Mark...I'm not sure how else to read your comment but a) don't sweat it and b) I didn't take it personally...I find it to be a bad idea to take anything on the internet personally. : My point was simply that if you shoot what you love you can find happiness in any brand and any model so long as you find a camera that can fit within the subject parameters. If I only shot in low light I'd choose Canon but I find Nikon to be a much better body for the outdoor shooting that I do. I also find the Nikon 200/2 and 200-400/4 to be the sharpest lenses on earth. It's all a personal choice. If you shoot flowers you might be thrilled with a Canon Elph Whatever floats the boat...for me, I like my pictures and I like what I produce and that's all that matters since I can only hope to please me at the end of the day.

Sorry you had a tough time with the D200 & 17-55...very odd considering I have them both and find the metering scary good. The spot and matrix metering on the D200 are amazing and the 17-55 creates some very nice finished work for me...matter of fact these two were with that combo in some tough lighting...nothing spectacular but I was happy: