My first DSLR!
- This topic has 9 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated Feb 19, 2008 at 7:12 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Hey guys,
I need your advice. I am in the market for a new dslr, but I am somewhat lost when it come to what I need to get. I know I will either get Canon or Nikon, but after that??? I have heard a lot about the Canon 40D, but I don’t know about spending that much on my first camera. What do you guys use? Why? And what are some of the price tags?
Thanks for your help!
DustyDusty, unfortunately I don’t think theres an easy answer. Further whats right for me, or the guy next to me may not be right for you.
Canon/Nikon.
No real answer there either. If I were given a choice between a free D3 or a free 1DMKIII I’d choose the Canon 1DMKIII because Canon has a better line up of long lenses which is my main pursuit(wildlife photography). Another person who’s main pursuit might be portrait/studio might opt for Nikon because they’re flashes are better (and cheaper). Sports shooters would probably opt for Canon for a few reasons and so on and so forth. Guides might very well opt for Nikon because outside of Canons Pro bodies, Nikon has better weather sealing, Canon for the most part has done a better job at noise control, the only exception migt be the D3 (atleast untill Canon fires back ) :).Theres no real anwer or recomendation imo other than its hard to go wrong with either.
What I will say is try to decide how serious you might want to get in a year or twos time. The more serious you think you might want to get the more you should budget for glass initially. Glass last, bodies dont. if you think it will never be more than a casual pursuit get a body that will let you grow into for a good while.
Good glass usually cost as much and more than the bodies themselves and its almost certain that at some point you will upgrade your body, no matter what you buy now. Your glass can last a lifetime.
Thanks John,
I am trying to get pretty serious about this, and I believe I will be doing it for many years. So, I agree w/ you concerning the glass. Maybe to be more accurate, I should have asked you guys what you shoot with and what the pros/cons are in each. I have already learned that it seems D200s are waterproof!
DustyThanks John,
I am trying to get pretty serious about this, and I believe I will be doing it for many years. So, I agree w/ you concerning the glass. Maybe to be more accurate, I should have asked you guys what you shoot with and what the pros/cons are in each. I have already learned that it seems D200s are waterproof!
DustyD200s also do not have preset shooting modes which means you have to know what you are doing with every shot. This forces you to learn pretty quick what you are doing, but it also ruins a few photo opportunities for the first few weeks
Dusty, I don’t know if any DSLR is waterproof. My MKIIn has survied through rain, it got soaked and is fine, Zachs body seems to have survied a quick dip. A friends 1DMKIII didnt survive a dip in some mud. Weather sealing is protection, not a surety.
Im a Canon shooter so I can’t speak much to Nikon other than a few general things. Currently I’m shooting with a 1DMKIIn. What do I like about it? Everything. It doesnt have a weakness imo and is particularily very good at fast action like sports and wildlife. Its AF is, for the most part second to none ( 2 chips vs 1) and its high fps and large buffer allow me to take advantage of that. In short I can get shots with it I wouldnt get with less camera. I don’t know if your preapred to jump into a pro body from the get go though so it probably isnt applicable.
The Canon 40D is quickly becoming a very popular body. I owned one briefly, it is an awful lot of camera for the price point. My only “knock” on it was its AF. Not that the AF is bad or weak, its not. It just wasnt as good as the AF found in the 1DMKIIN and 1DMKIII. If I dont buy a Canon 5D as a backup body at some point, I’ll likely buy the 40D again as a backup.
The D300 is sure to be a winner with consumers as well. Priced higher than the 40D but it richer in features. After that you get D200 and 30Ds and so on down each makers lines. Once your into the Pro sumer grade bodies the features you get over and above the next model down aren’t huge leaps but they cost a fair bit.
I think initially a 40D would serve you well as would one of Nikons comparable bodies. The only thing is how much room does that leave for glass and accessories? Its a rhetorical question, but one that needs consideration.
Would you be happy with a 40D/D200 and kit lens (18-55) for 6 months or more?
Would you be happy buying $600.00 Prosumer 17-85 IS or prefer a $1,500.00 24-70 f2.8 L
Maybe a Consumer 70-300 or a $1,500 70-200 f4 IS or $2,000 70-200 f2.8 IS
Thats the hard part.Mapping out glass purchases (imo) is infinately more important than deciding on bodies.
/edit
Its unrealistic to think anyone can go out and get a body, a few gig in memory, spare batteries, CP filter, Tripod, cable release, and complete a lens line up from 17mm to 400mm in one fell swoop.
Its taken me 3 years to get the glass I wanted. Im one lens short (70-200 f2.8) of being done an thats for next year (hopefully).But I’ve had all my lenses mapped out pretty much from day 1.
I started with the entry level Rebel XT and kit lens, but because I knewI wated to concentrate on wildlife photography I bought the Canon 100-400L and then the 400mm f5.6L. That did me untill I could afford my next lens which was a Macro lens ( 180mm f3.5), then a nice fast prime for portraits and indoor low light (85mm f1.8), then finally replaced the kit with a 24-70 f2.8.Along the way I upgraded bodies when I could. The point Im trying o make is that I knew I was going o be fairlly serious ad would want specific lenses. Had I bought ad spent most of my initial budget on my body Id have been without good glass for a long time and limited in what I could do with only a 17-55 kit lens. Nothing (imo) chaffs me more than not having a lens
John,
I went into a camera store today and talked to the sales rep. about the 40D vs. D200. In the end, he told me the lenses I have for my Canon EOS Rebels (film) will fit the 40D. Now, while the lenses I have are not “L” series Canon lenses, they will work for now; so, I guess the manufacturer debate is over. I am guessing that the extra 2 or 3 bills for the 40D vs. the 30D is worth it.If, or when, I get the 40D, what other acces. will I need?
Dusty the 40D is a nice step up from the 30D.
Aside from having some nice features that the 30D doesnt likelive view, 3 custom functions and a little weather sealing. Its image quality is nicer to. Its hard to put in words but theres a richness present that isnt there in the 30D. Possilby due to 14 vs 12 bit and or the digic 3 vs digic 2. Either I way I noticed a difference. AF and noise reductions are for the most the same.You dont have to have “L” glass. There are a numer of Canon non L lenses that are very good. Keep and use what you have untill you can or want to upgrade. If anything having those lenses will allow you to fill out other areas your lacking in. Again its better to have a lens than not.
Thats main point I was making. When you dont have a certain lens, your photograpphic opportunites are limited. Id rather have 3 lenses and an entry level body, thanYou have all been very helpful, and it is greatly appreciated.
Patrick: What would the lense kit include?
I am trying to teach myself Photoshop, but as you might imagine, it is going slowly. And I have an order in for Aperture 2.0. So, I guess it is coming together, despite how ever painfully slow.
Dusty
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.