I have $1000 for a DSLR camera body

[bchamorro]

Its that time for a new Digital SLR. I just sold my 4 year old Canon Rebel and I honestly didn't like it much, it felt very plasticky. DSLR technology must have improved a lot by now...

What body would you recommend me?

$1000 budget.
I don't own any lenses, so I will need a lens too. I have a $700 budget for the lens. Need something very versatile.

I do a lot of high speed shots (horses) as well as landscape/waterscape.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

So you said you don't have any lenses and I assume you don't have any other canon only stuff that you need, would you mind jumping ship to Nikon?

I have an xti and love it, but you sound more advanced than I. Have you seen the Nikon D90 (I think that's what it's called) it records pretty high quality video.

[Abstract]

If I were in the market right now for a DSLR, and I had your budget, I'd get the Nikon D90. Judging from the photos, it seems to be an excellent camera.

As for lenses, it depends on how far away you'd be standing from these horses. I think something like a Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8 would be outstanding. It doesn't have VR, but then again, you don't need it to shoot photos of moving horses.

[bchamorro]

I don't mind going with Nikon. I don't own anything right now.

The D90 looks like a great camera, and the HD movie mode seems like a great addition. I don't think I'll be using the movie mode much since I already own an HD camcorder (Canon HF10), but I will consider it just for the image quality.

I'll wait for more recommendations.

[Zieg3rman]

I would also go with the D90. I am just getting into photography but I think that from what you are saying, you are an aspiring photographer and the D90 should be everything you could possibly use. As for lenses. The 80-200 looks good. There is also an 18-200 VR which may suite you better incase you want to take an up close picture. I myself will hopefully get my new D80 in the mail tomorrow! Yessss! :D

[eji]

I have a Pentax K10D and it's a great camera, especially when you pair it with the 1.4/50mm Pentax prime instead of the 18-55 kit lens. You get an awful lot of features for your money -- including weather seals, which have been handy when I've been caught unawares in a drizzle.

[bchamorro]

I would also go with the D90. I am just getting into photography but I think that from what you are saying, you are an aspiring photographer and the D90 should be everything you could possibly use. As for lenses. The 80-200 looks good. There is also an 18-200 VR which may suite you better incase you want to take an up close picture. I myself will hopefully get my new D80 in the mail tomorrow! Yessss! :D

very nice! enjoy it!

I really want to go with either Canon or Nikon. So far the D90 is my top choice. I've also been looking at the Canon 40D. Any opinions on this one?

[radiantm3]

very nice! enjoy it!

I really want to go with either Canon or Nikon. So far the D90 is my top choice. I've also been looking at the Canon 40D. Any opinions on this one?

The only thing I don't like about the 40D is the horrible resolution on the LCD display. You will never know how sharp your photos are from viewing them on the LCD (even when zoomed). All you can really judge is the exposure. This is sort of an issue for someone like me who doesn't have the steadiest hands. :o

[UMHurricanes34]

The only thing I don't like about the 40D is the horrible resolution on the LCD display. You will never know how sharp your photos are from viewing them on the LCD (even when zoomed). All you can really judge is the exposure. This is sort of an issue for someone like me who doesn't have the steadiest hands. :o

That is 100% incorrect. The 40D's LCD is an extremely high resolution display, the issue comes with Canon's review algorithm. It shows a much lower resolution copy of the image just captured, thus resulting in the discrepancy between sharp or out of focus. The 50D is said to have an improved algorithm.

To prove my point, take a 40D and put it in Live View. This shows just how nice the LCD is. You can pinpoint your focus on it, no problem. Take the picture, and then see the previewed image. Is it sharp? Well you know it is because you just saw that it was perfectly in focus, but the preview image is making you scratch your head. That's the result of the algorithm, not the LCD.

If I were on a budget of $1000, I'd take a 40D or even a Canon XSi (what I'm using now until the 50D or 5D MKII come out). The 40D is dropping in price now that the 50D has been announced, and it's a fabulous camera. And Nikon can't even compare (at this moment) to the lenses available from Canon and the much superior L glass is always a beautiful thing to use.

I'm not anti-Nikon in any way, but I've always felt Canon has offered better lenses and better IQ from nearly all of their DSLR bodies. The XSi is astounding in IQ for a $600 camera.

My 2 Cents.

[wheezy]

If you're shooting at a horse track and need a very fast, very sharp lens then I recommend the 135F2 L by Canon. I own this lens and it is sharp, and plenty fast for horse racing. The only downside is the lack of zoom, it is a fixed, prime lens. I've never let that slow me down though. You can pick it up on Amazon for $900.

And sticking within your $1700 (total) budget, you can grab a 40D body for $775. With what's leftover you could probably pick-up the must have bang for the buck 50mm 1.8 so you can use your camera for something other than horse races.

OR, you could go for a 70-200F4 and and the 40D with the 28-135 IS Kit lens, but those are both slower lenses for really taking fast shutter shots.

Oh, and the Rebel was the beginning, Canon has come a LONG way in quality feel. That was my first DSLR as well, and stepping up to just the 20D was a world of difference.

[UMHurricanes34]

snip

Very good suggestions, the 135 f/2L is a fantastic lens and will probably be my next purchase.

I have a few L lenses and I can give some thoughts on each, but for that budget, the 135 f/2L or even go a little bigger for the 24-105 f/4L (on a crop body you'll get a little more distance).

The 24-105 f/4L is a bit slower, but it provides the flexibility of a zoom. But once you start to see the IQ prime lenses provide, you'll start using them more and more.

The 50mm 1.8 is a must have for every Canon shooter, and at about $80, there's no reason not to have one. When you get more experience with better lenses, the 1.4 is a great upgrade. More speed, USM, and much better build quality. But it is more expensive, and not worth the upgrade to some shooters.

And if you ever want to drop the big bucks, the 50mm f/1.2L USM is a breezy $1400 on amazon. Sadly, once you get your first L lens (or lenses), you get addicted to them.

[Edge100]

The 24-105 f/4L is a bit slower, but it provides the flexibility of a zoom. But once you start to see the IQ prime lenses provide, you'll start using them more and more.


The 135/F2L is not just "a bit" faster than the 24-105; it is a full two stops faster. That is, the difference between having to use ISO1600 vs. ISO400; or the difference between 1/200s vs. 1/100 (critical if you want sharp photos at these focal lengths on a crop body, or even a FF body). Depending on the intended use, the difference is absolutely enormous. The 135/2 will also focus much faster and have much shallower DOF than the (admittedly very good) 24-105/4.

Prime vs. zoom is always difficult, and the L zooms are great, but when you need the fastest, highest-quality glass, always choose primes.

[wheezy]

The 135/2 will also focus much faster and have much shallower DOF than the (admittedly very good) 24-105/4.

The focus on the 135 is VERY fast, I shoot drag racers right on the side of the track and when I'm not paying attention and miss the start, I'm still able to pull the camera up to my eye, center focus on the nose of the car and get a crystal clear shot before they're too far off the line. The other night I whipped around as a car passed me, focused on the license plate in the rear and got a shot sharp enough to read the telephone number on the plate holder, and that was approaching dusk when there wasn't a lot of light.

The 24-105 is an L so it's going to be good, but the 135 is one of the top 5 Canon L lenses.

[ChrisA]

$1000 budget.
I don't own any lenses, so I will need a lens too. I have a $700 budget for the lens. Need something very versatile.


When someone says "Which $1000 Canon dSLR body should I buy?" they have answers their own question. Canon only makes one dSLR body at each price point.

How did you decide on the 1000/700 split? Why not 700/1000? If you are starting from scratch why Canon? Why not Nikon? What kinds of subjects do you want to photograph and how will you use the camera.

Buying digital bodies is not like film bodies. Don't expect the digital body to last as long. Technology changes and you will want to upgrade. Not that the body will break but it's like with computers. Not many people would want to use a 10 year old computer. Same here not many will want a 10 years old dSLR body. Llenses can last decades. So again why the 1000/700 split.

No to answer the question: Buy the body with a "kit" lens. Shoot that combo for at least 1,000 or so frames then buy a second lens that will get the picures you missed with the kit lens. Maybe that will be a fast wide angle zoom or a 35mm prime maybe it waill be a Canon speedlight. You won't know untill you've shot 1,000 frames. Resist the temptation to by a cheap 300mm f/5.6 zoom beginners always think they need one of these and they don't.

[UMHurricanes34]

The 135/F2L is not just "a bit" faster than the 24-105; it is a full two stops faster.

Excuse my use of "bit" and the offense it brought to you. How does a "good bit" sound to you? Better?

[compuwar]

And Nikon can't even compare (at this moment) to the lenses available from Canon and the much superior L glass is always a beautiful thing to use.

What a load of crock. Show me one Canon lens with an MTF chart that *comes close* to the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 VR. Heck, show me *any* manufacturer's lens that compares to it- including Zeiss.

Perhaps you can explain why Hollywood uses Nikkors on their movie cameras instead of "much superior" Canon lenses?

Canon makes wonderful lenses, but they're not "much superior" to Nikon's line of equivalent lenses. With innovations like the Nano-coating Nikon has developed, the latest round of professional lenses from Nikon have unbelievable flare resistance, while keeping that contrasty punch Nikkors are known for.

Here's what Photodo has to say about Canon's own MTF scores:

Please have in mind when you compare the Zeiss and Canon articles about MTF that they have a different approach to the subject. Zeiss exhibits achievments from the real world lenses, while Canon exhibits design ideals for each lens.

Perhaps you can explain why the 20-35mm Canon L scores lower than the Nikon on Photodo if it's "much superior?" (Photodo shows lenses all over the map, Nikon has lots better than Canon, and visa versa- though they rarely have the latest incarnations and don't have all that many matches for Canon 'L' series glass and the equivalent Nikon lens in that focal length/aperture.)

[jaduffy108]

Another vote for the Nikon D90. With the 18-105 VR, it's $1300.

[mac 2005]

I don't mind going with Nikon. I don't own anything right now.

The D90 looks like a great camera, and the HD movie mode seems like a great addition. I don't think I'll be using the movie mode much since I already own an HD camcorder (Canon HF10), but I will consider it just for the image quality.

I'll wait for more recommendations.

I also would go with the Nikon. The D80 may be a better buy right now; with the D90 new on the market, the D80 has a nice price drop. That said, the D90 is worth the price and offers some obvious benefits over the D80.

With respect to Nikon vs. Canon. I've found the Nikon offers greater tactility than the Canons. I find the Canons too plasticky and do not feel good in the hand.

[UMHurricanes34]

snip *anger*

By superior L glass, I meant superior to the standard line of Canon lenses. People on the internet are so swift to explode for absolutely no reason.

Let's try reasonable discussion before jumping on one another, shall we?

[AlaskaMoose]

That is 100% incorrect. The 40D's LCD is an extremely high resolution display, the issue comes with Canon's review algorithm. It shows a much lower resolution copy of the image just captured, thus resulting in the discrepancy between sharp or out of focus. The 50D is said to have an improved algorithm.

To prove my point, take a 40D and put it in Live View. This shows just how nice the LCD is. You can pinpoint your focus on it, no problem. Take the picture, and then see the previewed image. Is it sharp? Well you know it is because you just saw that it was perfectly in focus, but the preview image is making you scratch your head. That's the result of the algorithm, not the LCD.

If I were on a budget of $1000, I'd take a 40D or even a Canon XSi (what I'm using now until the 50D or 5D MKII come out). The 40D is dropping in price now that the 50D has been announced, and it's a fabulous camera. And Nikon can't even compare (at this moment) to the lenses available from Canon and the much superior L glass is always a beautiful thing to use.

I'm not anti-Nikon in any way, but I've always felt Canon has offered better lenses and better IQ from nearly all of their DSLR bodies. The XSi is astounding in IQ for a $600 camera.

My 2 Cents.
You are correct about the 40D screen.

I will add the following: this lower resolution screen (except when used with Live View) saves battery power.

[cube]

The D80 is now $700 with the 18-55 VR.

[AlaskaMoose]

I also would go with the Nikon. The D80 may be a better buy right now; with the D90 new on the market, the D80 has a nice price drop. That said, the D90 is worth the price and offers some obvious benefits over the D80.

With respect to Nikon vs. Canon. I've found the Nikon offers greater tactility than the Canons. I find the Canons to plasticky and do not feel good in the hand.
That's nonsense. A person who has small hands finds the XT series perfect, while the 40D feels better in large hands. "Feel" does nothing for image quality, however.

[bchamorro]

Im going to go to the store and check these cameras out. I want to feel them in my hand too. Just to make it clear, lets say a I have a $1700-1800 budget for everything.

Btw, I won't be shooting horses at a race track. I'll be shooting slower movements like Dressage. Also landscape, waterscape and a lot of nature. So would you like to rethink your lens recommendation for those of you that made some?

http://www.geocities.com/dressagelynn/graphics/moud3.jpg

[Edge100]

Excuse my use of "bit" and the offense it brought to you. How does a "good bit" sound to you? Better?

No offense, but let's be accurate. The 135/2L is one of the best lenses Canon makes. While no slouch by any means, the 24-105/4L isn't in the same league. The ability to get very wide apertures means allowing vastly more light to hit the sensor, which may mean a lot in terms of high ISO noise on a $1000 body.

[cube]

Im going to go to the store and check these cameras out. I want to feel them in my hand too. Just to make it clear, lets say a I have a $1700-1800 budget for everything.


Check out the D200 too then. If you don't find one there, the D300 should give you and idea of what it feels in the hand.

A NEW body is $950 at the Cameta ebay store.

[tchaap]

D90 Body
18-200 VR lens

This is a killer combo...you'll love it.

[tchaap]

When someone says "Which $1000 Canon dSLR body should I buy?" they have answers their own question. Canon only makes one dSLR body at each price point.

How did you decide on the 1000/700 split? Why not 700/1000? If you are starting from scratch why Canon? Why not Nikon? What kinds of subjects do you want to photograph and how will you use the camera.

OP did not ask what Canon to buy. He said he HAD a Canon.

[bchamorro]

Thats right. I sold my 4-5 year old Canon Digital Rebel, which I did not like.
To make it clear I have a $1700-$1800 budget for everything. I could even go up to $2000 if the difference will amazing.

[cube]

You should ask yourself: What do I want?

- video, improved IQ, better LCD -> D90

- weather sealing, AI lens bargains -> D200

[bchamorro]

You should ask yourself: What do I want?

- video, improved IQ, better LCD -> D90

- weather sealing, AI lens bargains -> D200

D90 please!

Going to check them out today and probably make the purchase on friday (waiting for some funds).

[compuwar]

By superior L glass, I meant superior to the standard line of Canon lenses. People on the internet are so swift to explode for absolutely no reason.

Let's try reasonable discussion before jumping on one another, shall we?

First of all, I'm not angry, I'm rebutting a seemingly inaccurate statement with facts:

And Nikon can't even compare (at this moment)

Nikon actually compares more than favorably, their consumer kit lenses bundled with consumer DSLR bodies have, until very recently been regarded as generally better than Canon's, but Canon is now equaling them. Their consumer lenses compare quite favorably, and their professional lenses generally compare very well- in fact, the latest two Nikon Perspective Control (T/S) lenses filled in the only real arguable difference between the two company's lines- and that's with a niche product.) and the newest nano-coated optics are superb- so perhaps you can quantify what exactly you mean by "can't even compare?"

[mac 2005]

That's nonsense. A person who has small hands finds the XT series perfect, while the 40D feels better in large hands. "Feel" does nothing for image quality, however.

Please re-read the post. The issue at hand, pun intended, is the feeling of solidity, not the size of the camera. Nikons, to me, feel sturdier. Canons -- particularly the Rebel mentioned by the OP -- feel plasticky. I made no correlation between "feel" and image quality, so you're on your own there, too. :confused:

[AlaskaMoose]

Please re-read the post. The issue at hand, pun intended, is the feeling of solidity, not the size of the camera. Nikons, to me, feel sturdier. Canons -- particularly the Rebel mentioned by the OP -- feel plasticky. I made no correlation between "feel" and image quality, so you're on your own there, too. :confused:

The Rebel series are indeed small and lightweight, which is not bad at all for a person with small hands. The XS is also small and lightweight. The 40D is large and quite heavy, so is the new 50D, and the rest of Canon Cameras. Hold a 40D or 50D camera in your hands and tell me if these don't "feel" solid. In fact, I have both a XT and a 40D, and the latter feels extremely solid and heavy when compared to the XT. A larger camera is not only heavier because of the added amount of plastic (all cameras have plastics) over a smaller one. The XT is made of plastic, and the 40D has a metallic frame surrounded by plastic, which makes it much heavier.

[UMHurricanes34]

so perhaps you can quantify what exactly you mean by "can't even compare?"

Lens availability, not lens quality. Lens selection, not lens quality. I believe I also stated in that post (or some previous post) that I'm not anti-Nikon and that I appreciate everything they're doing and all of the recent innovations they've been introducing, but you continue to attack me as if I'm some Canon fanboy going "NIKON IS TeH SuCKZ0rz, K@Nn0n FTW!"

Let's all just calm down.

@Edge Here. The 135 f/2L is #$%^#$% fantastic. Now please stop jumping on me for not using the word you'd prefer.

[ChrisA]

I'll be shooting slower movements like Dressage. Also landscape, waterscape and a lot of nature. So would you like to rethink your lens recommendation for those of you that made some?

Just a few observations:

The best lens for you main subject costs more than you entire budget. That 70-200 f/2.8 would be the first choice but it's out of your budget.
Which such static subjects you don't need a fancy expensive dSLR body.
Concider buying a used lens. You can pick up a good Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for as low as $450 if you can use the push/pull version and for $650 if you want the slightly newer one. Both have absolute top of the line optics.
The Nikon D80 has recently come down in price. In terms of image quality it is nearly identical to any sub $1K body. At $570 it is currently the best deal on the market.
You are going to need a tripod for the subjects you list. Budget for one now


Think about the full SYSTEM. Eventually you will own a dSLR body, a few lenses and liky a speedlight (flash) and then you replace the body and trade some lenses. The SLR system will live much, much longer than any of it's parts. My Nikon SLR system is more then 20 years old and I do use some 20+ year old lenses with the new digital body.

[mrgreen4242]

Nikon D90 with Nikkor 18-200 VR lens is nearly exactly $1700, will perform will in a huge range of distances, has image stabilization, shoots very high quality stills, and has a first ever HD video record mode. Just my thoughts after researching my first DSLR exhaustively the last month. (My budget is MUCH smaller than yours, so I'm going with the D40, the kit lens, and a second lens to be determined later - either the 55-200 VR or the 18-135 if I decide I don't need the long lens or the 18-200 VR if I win the lotto).

[SolracSelbor]

First of all, I'm not angry, I'm rebutting a seemingly inaccurate statement with facts:



Nikon actually compares more than favorably, their consumer kit lenses bundled with consumer DSLR bodies have, until very recently been regarded as generally better than Canon's, but Canon is now equaling them. Their consumer lenses compare quite favorably, and their professional lenses generally compare very well- in fact, the latest two Nikon Perspective Control (T/S) lenses filled in the only real arguable difference between the two company's lines- and that's with a niche product.) and the newest nano-coated optics are superb- so perhaps you can quantify what exactly you mean by "can't even compare?"

C'mon guys! It's obvious that the Pentax DA series lenses have the "superior quality" over any lens, including L lenses. *Pshh* the L must stand for LOSER LENS :)

[wheezy]

C'mon guys! It's obvious that the Pentax DA series lenses have the "superior quality" over any lens, including L lenses. *Pshh* the L must stand for LOSER LENS :)

I always thought it stood for Lovely, but it's actually for a French Meaning, 'Le Red Ring'.

I'm a Canon guy, but I've said this for years; both Canon and Nikon are the top of the field, but the other players are catching up quickly. I shoot Canon cause it's what I managed to buy first (Original Rebel). I own two L lenses and the images they can produce when I get lucky are just beautiful, plenty incredible for my novice standards.

One thing I like about L lenses is the standard they have across the bar; they all have USM Focusing, and top-quality glass. Some throw in IS and that's the end of the acronyms. When you see the Red Ring, or see it labeled as an L, you know it top. I get confused by Nikkor lenses, it seems that some have 3-4 acronyms attached and I still don't know what one signifies their 'superior' glass. It's all just a personal preference for me though; both Canon and Nikon can deliver professional quality.

TO THE OP: How close are you to the horses? Maybe you could just buy a rather inexpensive 50mm Prime (1.8 or 1.4) that will be crystal clear at f/8, and fall well within your budget. You could then buy a nice, top-notch 16-xx wide angle for your landscapes. Hopefully in a few weeks the new 5D mkII will be out, pushing the price of the current 5D down quite a bit, and that Full Frame would be perfect for your landscapes. My 17-40 is plenty wide on my 20D, but I'd love to go FF and get just that little bit more that I'm losing to a crop body.

[MaddMacs]

Take care when choosing the newest cameras, Apple typically doesn't support the RAW formats right away. See the compatiblilty list here:
http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/raw.html

[law guy]

I'd go with the following in your shoes:

Nikon D90 18-105 VR kit - In stock at B&H for $1299 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/580422-REG/Nikon_25448_D90_SLR_Digital_Camera.html And that video mode is amazing - http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2008/08/chase-jarvis-raw-advance-testing-nikon.html

Nikon 70-300 VR - this is an excellent lens. See write up by Thom Hogan. http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm
It was long lens that Moose Peterson took with him on a recent trip to Hawaii - he's got some nice 70-300 shots in his blog (which you can use the search feature to find).http://www.moosenewsblog.com/

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_70_300mm_f_4_5_6G_AF_S_VR.html - in stock at B&H for $479

One from a 70-300 VR from up in the stands at Fenway - cropped in LR

http://gallery.me.com/tjparadise/100016/20080831-_DSC1608/web.jpg

Also from way up in the stands (under the over-hang) but less cropping:

http://gallery.me.com/tjparadise/100016/20080831-_DSC1595/web.jpg

[bchamorro]

can you guys also recommend me a tripod under $500?

I'm set on the camera (D90) but still need a little bit more time to decide on the lens.

[compuwar]

Lens availability, not lens quality. Lens selection, not lens quality. I believe I also stated in that post (or some previous post) that I'm not anti-Nikon and that I appreciate everything they're doing and all of the recent innovations they've been introducing, but you continue to attack me as if I'm some Canon fanboy going "NIKON IS TeH SuCKZ0rz, K@Nn0n FTW!"

Let's all just calm down.


First of all, I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your statements, which you have yet to back up as anything other than opinion, and likely not one based in the real world from what I can tell. Second of all, I'm perfectly calm.

You have to be kidding- you *honestly* expected your original statement to be construed as about lens selection. That's got to be about the worst possible way of phrasing it one could possibly come up with. Once again though, let's see qualification...

On the current USA Webisites of each company, Canon (62 total) has exactly four more current production lenses than Nikon (58 total[0].) All the focal length overlap in both company's lines means that they are pretty-much on-par from wide to super-tele. If you add in the used market, then your average Nikon shooter has significantly more lenses available than your average Canon shooter- even factoring in the bodies that don't have compatibility with some older glass. Look in the current KEH catalog at what's available in good condition for F-mount cameras and tell me again about lens selection, because I'm coming to the conclusion that you don't have the experience to form an opinion[1]. Are you now going to claim that selection means "selection of lenses in a particular focal length?" "Selection of lenses with electronic image stabilization?"

That leaves us with pretty-much parity in terms of coverage (after all, your average shooter doesn't need 2 28mm-105mm zooms for instance, nor on the other hand do they need two 18-55s and a 17-55.) You can make arguments either way for niche shooters (Canon has both a f/2.8 and an f/4 version of the 70-200, Nikon only the 2.8, Nikon has the excellent 200-400VR...)

As far as availability goes, my preferred Nikon authorized dealer[2] can hand me anything except the new $9500 600/4VR and the new $7900 500/4VR, both of which are backordered at the moment, but I could have ordered either and had one by now if I'd needed it, and he still has an AF-S II 600 in stock. I was in playing with lenses a couple of weeks ago and if you add in the used lenses he's got probably around 85 or so different Nikkors in stock.

[0] I'm too tired to track down if the "only bundled with a camera" lenses are listed, but if they aren't there are at least two of those, maybe three.)

[1] For what it's worth, I own more medium format Mamiya cameras and lenses than Nikon mount cameras and lenses, and just four more Nikon lenses than Pentax 67 lenses if we don't count a Nikkor enlarging lens, but do count a couple of Sigma F-mount lenses and a 24mm Nikkor that I never shoot with.)

[2] Ace Photo, Sterling, VA.

[pinktank]

d90 + 17+70 tamron + 80-200 F4 Nikon used and maybe an induro carbon fiber, not because I trust them but they have a pretty good warranty, not sure about their non sutdent prices though so check that out, if they are same as velbon, get velbon cf

[compuwar]

can you guys also recommend me a tripod under $500?

I'm set on the camera (D90) but still need a little bit more time to decide on the lens.

You should really decide how much lens weight you're going to put on a tripod before selecting one- you can spend a lot of money getting to the tripod you end up with. You should also decide what sort of head you like, and budget for that seperately unless you're a fan of the pan/tilt heads that come on some tripods. Personally, if you like ballheads, I recommend the original Acratech Ultimate Ballhead, it's light, well-made, holds a fair amount of lens and is trivial to clean if you're out in the elements a lot. If I shot with smaller lenses, it'd be on the top of my tripod.

Also, consider what sort of conditions you have to travel in, so you can decide if you have to go to 4 leg sections or not- 3-section tripods are generally longer, don't do as well maneuvering in crowds, dense bush or packed in luggage, but are a lot more stable than 4-section ones. If you shoot a lot of panning movement, you might want to go straight to a gimballed head if you're not a big pan/tilt person, or you shoot things where you need quick tilt with your panning.

Weather and perference also change what you're willing to consider material-wise. Wood is different than aluminum or carbon fiber in the cold, in the wet, dealing with vibration on some surfaces, and leg lock types and gloves are also pretty big issues for some folks- but if your'e a set it and forget it tripod shooter, they matter much less than if you're more mobile.

If you shoot macro, or wildlife down low, then center columns (or lack thereof) matter too.

How tall you are, if you shoot standing or hunched, there are a lot of factors that go into choosing the right tripod- some people compromise on a lot, some people don't consider much at all- but if you might get a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 down the road, then you may want a bigger tripod, or you may want to split your tripod purchase into a "light" and "heavy" one...

[compuwar]

d90 + 17+70 tamron + 80-200 F4 Nikon used and maybe an induro carbon fiber, not because I trust them but they have a pretty good warranty, not sure about their non sutdent prices though so check that out, if they are same as velbon, get velbon cf

The 80-200 f/4 is an AI-S lens, which won't meter with the D90 AFAICT and is MF only (or am I missing a version?) The 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D will meter and AF with the D90, is there a reason you'd recommend the f/4 version over the f/2.8 one? Most people prefer the push-pull f/2.8 lens in that focal lenght used from what I've seen.

[UMHurricanes34]

snip

You're correct sir, it was my opinion and you have proven that my opinion is false.

Nikon and Canon are both amazing companies and you can't go wrong with either.

Your talk of the lens dealer got me thinking, I really don't know of any top quality dealers in Atlanta, but I haven't really looked, either. Any suggestions from anyone? I'll have to look into that.

[SLC Flyfishing]

That's nonsense. A person who has small hands finds the XT series perfect, while the 40D feels better in large hands. "Feel" does nothing for image quality, however.

I also find the rebel cameras to feel "plastic and cheaply made" and have never enjoyed them, the control layout is a nightmare too. And I have small hands!

SLC

[compuwar]

I also find the rebel cameras to feel "plastic and cheaply made" and have never enjoyed them, the control layout is a nightmare too. And I have small hands!

SLC

I think it's worth noting that "cheap feeling" plastic isn't always as fragile as it feels. Very few camera destroying falls are in the middle range where an eight of an inch of plastic is going ot make a big difference. (I can say this now because I just renewed my camera insurance policy yesterday!) If the Digital Rebel series had an inordinate failure rate, you can be sure it'd be all over the Internet.

[Abstract]

No, cheap feeling doesn't mean anything, but then again, a cheap feeling car may never break down, either. I'd still rather have one that feels like it's high quality.

Anyway, today's plastics are as strong as most metals, or even stronger in some cases. It's all perception. It's hard to market a plastic camera as being better than a metal camera because they've been marketing the plastic cameras as cheap, low-end products for so long now. It's the same with expensive wines. Expensive wines always come in a bottle a few ounces heavier than cheap wine. The extra weight gives the wine a feel of quality when you pick up the bottle.....


Anyway, tripods: Get the Manfrotto 190XProB. It's a great balance of size, weight, strength, etc. Get a suitable head for the weight you want to carry. I have a Mag Fiber head (that I never wanted) because I got the two as part of a very nice package.

Great legs, and good head.™ ;)

[SLC Flyfishing]

I think it's worth noting that "cheap feeling" plastic isn't always as fragile as it feels. Very few camera destroying falls are in the middle range where an eight of an inch of plastic is going ot make a big difference. (I can say this now because I just renewed my camera insurance policy yesterday!) If the Digital Rebel series had an inordinate failure rate, you can be sure it'd be all over the Internet.

No objections there, I've not heard a lot of stories about Rebel's cracking or having other major quality issues. But I still have a problem with the feel of the camera, it just doesn't inspire confidence in the durability of the camera to me. I'd be worried about using it in certain settings, maybe those worries would be unfounded, but I'd still be wary of it.

SLC

[AlaskaMoose]

I also find the rebel cameras to feel "plastic and cheaply made" and have never enjoyed them, the control layout is a nightmare too. And I have small hands!

SLC
That's not the case with me. I like the feel of the little Rebel XT, and have no problems with its controls layout. It took me a little time to get used to the "sturdy" and large 40D, but I am happy with it.

[radiantm3]

That is 100% incorrect. The 40D's LCD is an extremely high resolution display, the issue comes with Canon's review algorithm. It shows a much lower resolution copy of the image just captured, thus resulting in the discrepancy between sharp or out of focus. The 50D is said to have an improved algorithm.

To prove my point, take a 40D and put it in Live View. This shows just how nice the LCD is. You can pinpoint your focus on it, no problem. Take the picture, and then see the previewed image. Is it sharp? Well you know it is because you just saw that it was perfectly in focus, but the preview image is making you scratch your head. That's the result of the algorithm, not the LCD.

If I were on a budget of $1000, I'd take a 40D or even a Canon XSi (what I'm using now until the 50D or 5D MKII come out). The 40D is dropping in price now that the 50D has been announced, and it's a fabulous camera. And Nikon can't even compare (at this moment) to the lenses available from Canon and the much superior L glass is always a beautiful thing to use.

I'm not anti-Nikon in any way, but I've always felt Canon has offered better lenses and better IQ from nearly all of their DSLR bodies. The XSi is astounding in IQ for a $600 camera.

My 2 Cents.

Thanks for the correction. But it seems extremely short-sighted of canon to not utilize the high resolution display for previewing images. It should at least be an option. Either way, its a problem for me.

[neonart]

Just to present a different option, you can do an E3 for about $1400 and a $300-400 lens to start, and you'll be in the pro department, have Live View, articulating LCD, weather sealed body, image stabalizer, and crazy fast focus.

While this will not be the popular choice, four third lenses are availsble from 3 great brands: Olympus, Leica(Panasonic), and Sigma.

It's worth looking into it.

www.four-thirds.org

www.olympusamerica.com/e3/index.asp

[hank-b]

D90 Body
18-200 VR lens

This is a killer combo...you'll love it.


I have the Nikon 18-200VR lens and it is fantastic. I rarely use anything else now - my Nikon 50/1.4 when it's very dark and my Nikon 300/4 for the occasional long telephoto shot, but for 99% of the time the 18-200VR does it all. My camera's a D70 by the way which is great, but a little lower resolution than the current generation.

HB

[legacyb4]

Ditto on the Pentax K10D; you can find a used body under $500 (price is no reflection at all on quality of the body OR its abilities by any means). Since you don't have a lens collection, you'll have cash leftover for some really nice glass that can't be had at Nikon/Canon prices (especially for primes).

I have a Pentax K10D and it's a great camera, especially when you pair it with the 1.4/50mm Pentax prime instead of the 18-55 kit lens. You get an awful lot of features for your money -- including weather seals, which have been handy when I've been caught unawares in a drizzle.

[Phatpat]

D90 + 18-105 VR + used 80-200 f/2.8

Should be right about your budget.

[khunsanook]

No objections there, I've not heard a lot of stories about Rebel's cracking or having other major quality issues. But I still have a problem with the feel of the camera, it just doesn't inspire confidence in the durability of the camera to me. I'd be worried about using it in certain settings, maybe those worries would be unfounded, but I'd still be wary of it.

SLC

From my experience, I wouldn't worry about the Rebels' quality. I've had a backup Rebel XT since 2005. It has consistently been in tropical humidity, trekked through mud, rain, dust and dropped a few times. It has well over 100K shutter releases - definitely way more than it's rated for. But now it's time to upgrade the backup due to improvements in image resolution of the new XSi. I love the small size as well for keeping the load compact.