Building a new dSLR suite?
Okay, so after a couple of years of using a superzoom and being frustrated by its many shortcomings, I'm ready to Take The Plunge 
into the world of dSLRs. I have enough money to do it right, but not so much that money is no object.
What it will be used for:
Anyway, after looking around I think there are several camera bodies that seem to qualify: Canon 400D, Canon 30D, Nikon D80, and perhaps the Pentax K10D, although I can't find a higher-level Pentax body.
As far as lenses go: I intend to start with a wide-to-short-telephoto zoom, then probably add a longer telephoto zoom and a short-tele macro lens, say a 105mm or 135mm. However, I want good lenses. If the standard kit lens qualifies, that's fine; if not, then what lens should I start with?
For some reason my eye settled on the D80 and is reluctant to look anywhere else ... perhaps because somebody I know & trust, a very good photographer, has a couple of Nikon dSLRs and swears by them.
Does anybody here have any insight to offer on any of the above needs, wants, or possible choices? Am I demanding way too much? I seem to see an awful lot of Canon hardware at pro sports events -- is that because Canon really is better for sports, or is it because "everybody uses Canon because everybody uses it," or is there some dark secret reason like sponsorship/exclusivity agreements, or what?
-- Jon W.
into the world of dSLRs. I have enough money to do it right, but not so much that money is no object.What it will be used for:
- Landscapes and scenics
- Outdoor wildlife, specifically including birds and other small zippy things
- Sports and action -- perhaps some people-sports like football and baseball, definitely people-and-animal sports like horseback riding, dog agility, etc.
- Indoor low-light shooting: building interiors, animals in zoo/nature center exhibits
- At least 8MP
- A sensor which produces pro-quality images
- Shutter speeds up to 1/1600
- ISO up to 1600
- Usable in any temperature from below freezing to 100+
- Fast autofocus
- Follow-focus
- Multiple focusing points
- Burst mode of at least 3fps
- At least the 4 basic exposure modes: manual, aperture, shutter, program
- A lens line that includes a selection of good inexpensive lenses
- A lens line that includes high quality specialized lenses for specialized situations
- Hot shoe for external flash
- Viewfinder shows essential data: recommended shutter speed & aperture, selected speed & aperture, current ISO, current shooting mode, focus status (locked on or not)
- Ability to accept big memory cards
- SD/SDHC cards preferred, but CF not a dealbreaker
- Price under $1500 for the camera body
- RAW mode available
- Usable in any temperature from below zero to 100+
- Usable in salt air environments -- ie, being aboard a boat at sea won't bother it
- Fast fast fast autofocus -- "instantaneous" would be good
- Fast fast fast (see a pattern yet?:D) follow-focus. I want to be able to lock on a dog or a horse running directly toward or away from the camera, and have the focus stay right on.
- Long battery life
- Meaningful battery-charge indicator -- not just a segmented-graphic indicator, and certainly not just the flashing "your batteries will die in thirty seconds" graphic which is all my superzoom shows me
- Controls that aren't needlessly complicated
- Extender grip that holds spare battery and vertical-grip controls
- Belongs to a camera line that has higher-power bodies, so if/when I want to upgrade, I can.
Anyway, after looking around I think there are several camera bodies that seem to qualify: Canon 400D, Canon 30D, Nikon D80, and perhaps the Pentax K10D, although I can't find a higher-level Pentax body.
As far as lenses go: I intend to start with a wide-to-short-telephoto zoom, then probably add a longer telephoto zoom and a short-tele macro lens, say a 105mm or 135mm. However, I want good lenses. If the standard kit lens qualifies, that's fine; if not, then what lens should I start with?
For some reason my eye settled on the D80 and is reluctant to look anywhere else ... perhaps because somebody I know & trust, a very good photographer, has a couple of Nikon dSLRs and swears by them.
Does anybody here have any insight to offer on any of the above needs, wants, or possible choices? Am I demanding way too much? I seem to see an awful lot of Canon hardware at pro sports events -- is that because Canon really is better for sports, or is it because "everybody uses Canon because everybody uses it," or is there some dark secret reason like sponsorship/exclusivity agreements, or what?
-- Jon W.
0
Comments
All of the cameras you listed will do you fine. I would look at their systems, lenses, flash, advanced bodies etc. You are buying a system and you will want to upgrade at some future date (resistance is futile). You don't want to get locked into a system that won't meet your growing needs.
The various kit lenses have gotten a bum rap, IMHO, they are a good starting point if you are a limited budget (and you are). They usually hold their value pretty well and can be sold when you want to move on to "better" glass.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Well given your requirement for environmental sealing/durability/reistance to the elements that leaves out all but the K10 and the K10 only with the 2 sealed lenses. And no, at present there is no higher specced Pentax available.
Realistically what you want is a Canon 1D or Nikon D2 body for WAY less than you can get one for unless it's pretty old.
Other than that, the closest camera body to meeting your requirements AND price is the Olympus E3.
All the lenses from the "semi" pro line and pro line are sealed. The seals on the camera itself are as good as you're going to get at this price point- likely to actually be the best at this price point.
The lens selection is actually quite good. Only missing out on some of the mid telephoto fast primes.
The D200 would be the next best choice as the 30/40 had no real sealing.
So check out the E3 you may be surprised at all it offers- like inbody IS, articulating LV screen, 100% VF, 5fps, 11point AF all cross type, new faster focusing lenses, arguably the best wide angle zoom lens made 7-14/4 (2x multiplier makes all Oly lenses twice the state FL).
Gene
As for fast, fast, fast AF performance, the lens used has as much to do with that as the body. The true pro-quality bodies do have superior AF performance, but your $1,500 budget won't be enough for those (although Nikon's new D300 is close at $1,800 . . . ).
Glass: Sigma 70-200 f2.8 | Sigma 20 f1.8 | Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM
Pretty sure most SLR's will be much faster than your superzoom. Perhaps bum an SLR off your buddy and get a benchmark from which to work?
Good Evening,
That would definitely suit his needs, unfortunately not his budget :cry
Have a good evening
Jim...
I think the Canon 40D (as opposed to the 400D/XTI that you listed) would meet your list pretty well. It should definitely be good at sports and low-light. However, low-light works better with lenses with large apertures, and you'll see that with prime lenses rather than zooms, unless you spring for those ones with constant 2.8 aperture. Especially sports can require large apertures, because you'll want the shot to be action-stopping rather than just faster than the drift of your body while you hold the camera in low light. The main difficulty with kit lenses is they have smaller apertures, which require longer times. Kit lenses are good for figuring out focal lengths you like working at when you're new to SLR photography, but they're mainly good at this because they're cheap and because they come in the kit in the first place.
If you strap a pro Nikon lens onto a pro Nikon body (D2 class) it will easily keep up with the best that Canon has to offer in terms of autofocus speed and accuracy.
I believe that Nikon lost many pro shooters simply because Canon is perceived at having much better lowlight and high-ISO performance and Canon was also the first to couple 8 megapixels and high frame rates (1D MK II/IIN). (The ISO reality is somewhat less of a difference than the perception. Sports Illustrated seems to think that Nikon D2X/D2Xs ISO 1250 is similar to Canon 1D MK II/IIN ISO 1600).
I believe that the two factors above convinced many pros to go to the Canon camp.
Now that Nikon has the D300, and soon to have the D3, the pro market may turn around somewhat. Those appear to be exremely nice cameras in a lot of different ways.
The Canon 20D/30D/40D are indeed very nice cameras, and many sports shooters do use them, but the Nikon D200 (and now D300) are also used by sports shooters.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Good Evening Ziggy,
Kinda like a Ford then Chevy man, then back to Ford again
(or vice versa)
What ever happened to Tucker
Have a good evening
Jim...
Unfortunately, the 40D with kit lens starts at $1800 last time I looked. If I step down a level in camera body quality, I can get a body and kit lens, plus at least one more lens, for the same amount of money.
So .... perhaps my lens set should start out with a wide-range variable-aperture zoom (say 18-200mm) as a walking-around lens, an f/2.8 wide-to-normal zoom (maybe 28-135mm or something similar) for low-light action stuff, and perhaps a prime long-telephoto for wildlife.
I should probably make it clear that I'm new to digital SLR photography, but not to SLR photography in general. I have an old set of Minolta film SLR stuff: three camera bodies and half a dozen lenses. I haven't used it in a few years, but when I was using it I took a lot of pictures in the normal-to-short-tele range, between about 50mm and 200mm. In college I took pictures for the school newspaper, which included such thrills as shooting basketball with a 50mm lens and Tri-X pushed to 1600. So I'm no stranger to the basic issues of SLRs and action shooting. What I need help with is the huge ocean of choices in digital technology, and figuring out how to get what I want without either spending more than I need to or getting a bunch of features I'll probably never use.
-- Jon W.
As far as the rest of your requirements go, I think the best fit for your needs at a reasonable price is either the 40D from Canon or the D300 from Nikon. My guess is that you will find the Canon Rebel line a bit underpowered for your needs and you will find older Nikon bodies to be lacking somewhat in high ISO performance.
As far as lenes go, both Canon and Nikon make both 17-55/2.8 IS/(VR?) and 24-70/2.8 zooms which I believe are the natural upgrades to the kit lenses if you like speed. Canon also make a very nice 24-105/4 IS if you prefer a bit more reach and a lightweight package.
Tamron also makes an 17-50mm 2.8 lens in Canon & Nikon mounts. My copy is so sharp, I cut myself every time I pick up my camera
Have a good evening
Jim...
I believe Canon patented the fully electronic lens mount and then shifted over to it in the mid 80s. Nikon was then stuck with a slower hybrid mount system until Canon's patent expired sometime in the late 90s. I finally decided to retire my old Canon EF mount gear in 2000 and looked at both Canon and Nikon. Canon's lens line was 100% electronic, completely interchangeable and they were just introducing their first generation IS lenses. By comparison, Nikon was just introuducing their first electronic mount lenses, body/lens compatibility was complicated and confusing, and IS wasn't even on the radar. At the time, deciding on Canon looked like a no brainer to me. Today, I think Nikon finally recovering from that decades long fumble.
Sharpness is not the only measure of quality in a lens, but you're right that Tamron makes some great lenses for the money. I have seriously considered picking up their 28-75/2.8 which many consider to be optically as good as the Canon 24-70/2.8 at 1/3 the price.
If you're looking for a higher end Pentax entry, it'll probably be announced in late January. Looks like we can expect the same great build plus a new 14MP sensor and possibly full-frame or 1.25 to 1.3 crop factor.
Take more pictures!
Good Morning
You are correct. The contrast is also very good and the distortion is very well controlled as well. I've had no issues with either ca's or vignetting. I had the 28-75 2.8 last year, briefly. It was a very good lens (copy), just not wide enough for me.
Have a good day
Jim...
Yeah, I forgot to finish that first paragraph. Ugh. Canon beat them out on speed and a lot of pros switched. Nikon has caught up now, but it's after the fact.
The big switch over to Canon happened during film years. The 1D mk II was later.
$1800? That price is from the Nikon D200 kit. The 40D with EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 kit costs $1500. I think the kit with the EF-S 17-85 instead is $100 more. Body only is $1300. That's why I could recommend it; it IS in your price range. If you saw higher prices, maybe it was in Canadian dollars or someone had bought two and was trying to sell one for higher during short supply and high demand.
The f/2.8 zooms cost $1,000+, though, unless you get them used. (Both Canon and Nikon.) If you wanted, you could use a large aperture prime for low-light in the meantime. The Sigma 30/1.4 is a good normal lens coming in both mounts, with a field of view equivalent to 45mm with Nikon and 48mm with Canon.
One thing that might help in sorting out the features would be to read the first set of reviews from when these bodies came out. Those articles and blog posts would be more likely to reference new features than the things they all have in common, and you can see what things the companies are working on and improving. The Canon 40D vs 30D and Nikon's D80 vs D70 and D300 vs. D200. They'll bring up the increased dynamic range, and stuff like that. It will also tell you what the previous baseline was.
Definitely listen to the other replies telling you to look at the whole system and not just the body. Bodies don't retain value long, so you can go cheap on them and save money for better lenses instead. But we all want the best and latest anyway.
Other things I look at when choosing a lens are weight, build, bokeh, and IS.
It's pricey, but by far the best 18-200 zoom on the market is Nikon's 18-200VR. Image quality from it isn't quite as good as the pro lenses, but rivals them in a 11X zoom.
http://cusac.smugmug.com
Anyway, I happened to stop by a local camera store today and was able to handle both bodies, the D80 and the 40D. The 40D feels a bit too big for my hands, and would be bigger still with the battery grip that I plan to get eventually. The D80 is more comfortable, closer in size and mass to my old film SLRs.
So I've noticed. :cry I may have to accept something a little slower -- maybe an f/4. SLRgear.com has some nice things to say about Nikon's 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom.
Am I making too much of the need for lens speed, do you think? I learned on film SLRs, where speed was set for the duration of the roll, and 400 was as fast as it got without push-processing or very expensive high-speed film. I keep having to remind myself that with digital, I can adjust ISO as much as two stops higher, and image stabilization adds even more in all situations except action shooting. Maybe I should start with a slower lens and see just how much I miss the extra speed before I spend money on it. I have no doubt that eventually I'll want a fast lens for indoor action, but maybe not right away, and a short-tele prime lens might do just as well as a zoom. Especially if it's also a macro lens, which I want anyway.
The D80 currently comes with an 18-135mm kit lens. Does it make sense to get that when I already intend to get a superzoom, probably an 18-200mm? Or should I just get the body and the superzoom?
-- Jon W.
Seriously doubt that it will be a sensor any larger than the current APS, as their new lenses are APS. They won't work on a 1.2-3X sensor without some SERIOUS vignetting.
Kind of shot themselves in the foot I think.
Gene
It depends on how you shoot. I shot an entire wedding (no flash) at ISO 1600 and only my f/1.4 primes (35 & 50) were fast enough for the light. I brought the 85/1.8 with me, but it stayed in the bag. On the other hand, when I shoot landscapes, I bring a tripod and no lens faster than f/4.
Go with L glass, if you can afford it.
Go fast, if you can, so you can stop down to mid range sharpness and still have enough elbo room for amdient light.
All this about Canon and Nikon sounds right. Thing is, Canon has been very consistent in their system strategy for a very long time now. The L lens are far too expensive, but I feel far more secure knowing that I'll probably have them for a long time.
The EFS 17-35 I have is very sharp in the closer ranges. In fact the macro is ace. But the sharpness begins to break up at longer distances. Knowing what I know now, I would have opted the extra for some L glass.
Canon, I understand, is the only manufacturer that designs and makes it's own glass, image processors AND image sensors. They've been at it a long time. The image processors are nothing short of magical.
I expect to be using this equipment for a mix of several situations:
- indoors, with and without flash
- landscapes
- wildlife, primarily birds and some small critters, for which I can usually expect decent lighting
- outdoor action shooting in all light conditions from bright sunlight to early morning/late afternoon
- possibly some indoor action
I don't do indoor portrait or posed photography like weddings, and I don't expect to start anytime soon. For most of these, my current camera (Canon S2 IS superzoom, almost always set to ISO 200) is usually adequate, so any lens f/5.6 or faster should work well enough. The S2's performance just collapses in low light, whether outdoor or indoor, so I figure I really need fast lenses for the indoor and low-light action.In prowling around several websites today, I discovered a listing for a Sigma 28-135mm f/2.8-4.5 zoom -- almost the same zoom range as the D80 kit lens, and a stop faster. That looks like a good lens for all sorts of medium-range action shooting, and at ISO 1600 it might even be fast enough for some indoor shooting.
Your mention of "without flash" reminds me of another question I had: what about ancillary equipment like flashes? When I was shooting with film, there were numerous third-party flash units that were adequate for most of the situations I encountered. Nikon's own flashes are expensive -- does anybody make cheaper flashes that still provide all basic functions? What would you recommend?
-- Jon W.
Well, that's important, so get what works for you.
It really is a highly personal "biometric" thing -- I find the "mini" dSLRs such as the Rebel XT to be too tiny in my hands to get a comfortable, secure grip on them. I'm afraid it will slip out of my hand or just plain not be steady because I can't get all my fingers securely on it. For me, the best fit has been with a battery grip added. ...Besides, by the time you combine a grip, two batteries, and a 3.5-pound lens on the front, not only do you have a camera, but also a workout system
Good plan. You will no doubt want (or at least idly dream about) a nice f/2.8 tele at some point -- but it makes sense to start out on the modest side and via real-world usage discover what you really need before laying down the big moola. If you get reasonable-quality lenses to start with, they'll retain their value fairly well, making it not to painful to trade up as you go. (and DGrin's Flea Market is a great forum for buying and selling lenses as your needs change)
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
Big digital cameras feel to me like film cameras with a motordrive: like a working camera, not a general-purpose camera. It's a camera I'd carry for jobs I was getting paid major money for, but not a camera I'd want to carry on my nature-walks. And big heavy cameras can become positively dangerous in some situations, like aboard a boat in mild seas.
-- Jon W.
....on the other hand, using a dSLR with battery grip and heavy lens does tend to give me exclusive access to the camera -- no one else (spouse and two young grade-school children) is anxious to use it
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
You aren't making too much of the need for lens speed. If you can keep both the camera and subject perfectly still, then it doesn't matter what aperture you take pictures at indoors without a flash except for depth of field. But if you want to do candids in that kind of setting, you should get a fast prime. Pushing ISO up to 1600 increases noise (fix it afterwards) and isn't a true substitute for optics. As for IS, though, we'd all love for our fast primes to have that too, but Canon isn't there yet.
If you want to stick with zooms for that range, go for a flash instead and bounce it off things. As nice as being inobtrusive in low-light with no flash is, off-body flash makes a very useful and appealing difference. You can also (at least with Canon) have the flash fire a red autofocus assist beam to help the camera focus in low light without having it flash for the shot.
Nothing wrong with starting with a slower lens to see what you like or need. Only you can determine that.
his Canon gear in favor of the new D3. A part of the reason he did so was
because in his line of work, he needed accurate and not fast AF. Another
reason was pixel count. A photo journalist does not require much more than
12MP for images that appear in print. The third and final reason was that he
felt the new Nikon fit better in his hands.
How the camera fits you matters and what Harry said about spending some
quality time with various cameras would be a great start.