Digital SLR

[Moxiemike]

Man, did the world end or what! You are coming over to the Canon camp?! What's next, we really do find WMD's in Iraq?

Congrats though. I am surprised though since you IIRC discounted the quality of FF sensors in other threads here.

I do think FF, even the one on the 5d gives infinitely more vignetting and light falloff, not to mention corner softness on the wide end. But a 24mm t&s needs to be 24mm in my world, and i didn't wanna but the craptastic 14n....so i need FF + resoultion.

still keeping my nikon gear for sure though

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

oh, i think there's tons of ways a "layman" can spot a shoody lens. the canon kit lens has been proven to be inferior to their other lenses. That $100 can go towards, and make the price more bearable, for say, a 24-85 or the 28-135 IS which is around $400 and a much better buy IMHO.

Some of my customers will disagree with you. They are very happy with what they get out of the 18-55.

 

[Moxiemike]

Some of my customers will disagree with you. They are very happy with what they get out of the 18-55.

Probably. but many are dissatisfied with the 18-55 kit lens. I think it's poo and the images i've seen from 2 or 3 samples stunk too. the 18-70 from nikon is a little more consistent. Still, i'd even suggest a Sigma 18-55 before the canon...

 

[Clix Pix]

Which distortion are you referring to? The natural extreme wide angle distortions that one gets in even 35mm photography, or the distortion that comes with going wider on the APSC sized sensors.

If it is the latter, two extreme wide zooms from Tamron and Tokina have very well corrected edges.

The latter.... Thank you, before I buy any extreme WA lens I will definitely check out the Tamron and the Tokina versions! That's good to know that they have very well corrected edges, as it is a real PITA to have to sort all that out in post-processing. Thanks!

OTB

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

The latter.... Thank you, before I buy any extreme WA lens I will definitely check out the Tamron and the Tokina versions! That's good to know that they have very well corrected edges, as it is a real PITA to have to sort all that out in post-processing. Thanks!

OTB

From the comments I have read the Tamron is the king of the heap right now with their 11-18. People complain about the short 1.6x zoom range compared to most others having a 2x zoom range, and it is the slowest of the bunch at 4.5-5.6 aperture. But these "flaws" are what helps make it one of the best of breed.

 

[generik]

The kit lense on the Nikon is definitely better, but since you are shelling out so much coin for a new body, might as well buy a new lense too

I love my 17-40L

 

[madmaxmedia]

oh, i think there's tons of ways a "layman" can spot a shoody lens. the canon kit lens has been proven to be inferior to their other lenses. That $100 can go towards, and make the price more bearable, for say, a 24-85 or the 28-135 IS which is around $400 and a much better buy IMHO.

I don't think they're so horrible as to be unusable, since at least you are getting some wide angle in there. It just depends on your budget, if you can afford a lens or 2 with the body, or have to wait. I mean most lenses can be reasonably sharp at the middle range apertures, so what you shoot is a factor.

That being said, I sold mine as soon as I got it (I got the bundle as a great price.) I ended up getting the 28-105 USM (the one with the real USM), which was a pretty good value at around $200 (Dell coupons!)

One lens I always recommend is the Canon 50mm 1.8. Great all-purpose lens, especially for portraits. Sharper than any zoom you can find for under $500 or so. The 50mm 1.4 is better, but then you could also put the money towards something else.

 

[cyberone]

u like vivid colours, great saturation and a nice price?

then check out the new olympus e-500.

I make a living with the e-1 - e-500 is tempting though, even if it is much cheaper!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse500/

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

Going to make myself a mental note to refer future DSLR questions to this thread... seems as if the question's been beaten to death quite thoroughly already.

I shoot with a D70s. Love the interface, love the quality. I need to get some more glass, though.

If you've never shot with a DSLR before, here are a few things you have to know:
1) You can't see your pictures in real-time on the LCD screen. You will have to frame your picture in the viewfinder, which will typically not show 100% of the picture you're taking.
2) When switching lenses, dust can get onto the DSLR's sensor. DSLRs require routine upkeep.
3) Response time on DSLR is practically instant, and powerup is usually instant, pending on which DSLR you purchase.
4) DSLRs can not take video, although compact digital cameras usually do. DSLRs can usually shoot pictures at several frames per second, though.
5) Lenses will run you more in price than your camera. Once you start getting some good glass, it won't be odd at all for you to have lenses that cost significantly more than your camera. It's like people with $300 ipods, and $500 headphones. That's just how things are.

I'm not sure how much you know about DSLRs, but those are just a few facts and might clear up some misconceptions. (I first thought that DSLRs could preview pictures in real-time on the LCD until I did some research.) I'm sure I probably missed plenty of important information, but ... I have class.

 

[crazzyeddie]

I say go for the D70(s). The D70 is not significantly different from the D70s, and you might be able to find it cheaper. The lens it comes with is great, and you can get lots of cheap Nikkor lenses (from Japan). I got a 70-300mm for $99!!

 

[kbonnel]

2) When switching lenses, dust can get onto the DSLR's sensor. DSLRs require routine upkeep.

Oh, one of my big pet peeves!!!!! I am starting to get better at living with some sensor dust (only some though ).

5) Lenses will run you more in price than your camera. Once you start getting some good glass, it won't be odd at all for you to have lenses that cost significantly more than your camera. It's like people with $300 ipods, and $500 headphones. That's just how things are.

Man this is so true. I bought my 20D with a 17-85IS lens, 70-300IS and a 50 1.8 (fantastic), and then quickly sold those (not the 50 though) to get a 17-40 4L, 70-200 4L, 24-70 2.8, and now I am looking at the 24-105IS 4L, 100-400L or 300IS 4L. I still can't justify a +2k lens, but I am working on it

Kimo

 

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

Hey Moxie and Novamac... is there a Nikon FF on the horizon? I'm still holding out.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Oh, one of my big pet peeves!!!!! I am starting to get better at living with some sensor dust (only some though ).

That is why the Olympus E-1, E-300, and E-500 DSLR's have found favor with some out there. And with the near release of super fast zooms (35mm eqv - 28-70 f2.0, a 70-200 f2.0, and a 90-250 f2.8 - the 4/3 system may find a niche with pros that also want dust free dust to the ultrasonic cleaning of the CCD.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Hey Moxie and Novamac... is there a Nikon FF on the horizon? I'm still holding out.

At least from my armchair, I doubt it for a while from Nikon. Many factors are at play.

First is that FF sensors are not fully capable of delivering really sharp corners with most current 35mm lenses in the corners, if sample images are any indication (gives credence the Olympus party line about digital specific lenses) . Nikon's approach at this time is for the APSC format to lead the way for the short term. Witness their 17-55 f/2.8.

Second is that there is grumbling already from some in the Canon camp that their EF-S lenses are not usable on the new 5D. Though Canon may have the best approach with formats that meets the needs of the user. Full Frame, 1.3x and 1.6x form factors. Let the photographer chose the tool that best suits their needs seems to be Canon's choice. Just look at Moxies choice to go with the 5D and the 24mm TS lens from Canon. Nothing from Nikon will currently work for his needs.

Third is that Canon has their own CMOS manufacturing capability. They can make what sensors they really need. Nikon is currently limited to OEMing their sensors.

 

[Moxiemike]

At least from my armchair, I doubt it for a while from Nikon. Many factors are at play.

First is that FF sensors are not fully capable of delivering really sharp corners with most current 35mm lenses in the corners, if sample images are any indication (gives credence the Olympus party line about digital specific lenses) . Nikon's approach at this time is for the APSC format to lead the way for the short term. Witness their 17-55 f/2.8.

Second is that there is grumbling already from some in the Canon camp that their EF-S lenses are not usable on the new 5D. Though Canon may have the best approach with formats that meets the needs of the user. Full Frame, 1.3x and 1.6x form factors. Let the photographer chose the tool that best suits their needs seems to be Canon's choice. Just look at Moxies choice to go with the 5D and the 24mm TS lens from Canon. Nothing from Nikon will currently work for his needs.

Third is that Canon has their own CMOS manufacturing capability. They can make what sensors they really need. Nikon is currently limited to OEMing their sensors.

Exactly. And this is where, i think, we're heading for a "niche" factory with both brands. I think the architecture/fashion/sports folks are going to go with Canon because of things like FF and their line of fast, long IS lenses.

For landscape, bird/nature and maybe some sports, folks will choose Nikon, it seems, as the APSC factors (distortion with extreme WA, cropped sensors, et. al.) play into those photographers factors.

I think that with Canon having the R&D to produce high MP CMOS sensors whenever they want will force manufacturers to find major "niche" features that keep their cameras selling.

I think that breaks down past the "big 2" with Olympus and their 4/3's system and crazy lenses, Fuji as a Nikon alternative with higher DR sensors, Minolta with their integrated anti-shake, and even pentax with their affordable but feature rich small DSLRs (which according to a couple Ritz shops around town are selling briskly to folks with old pentax lenses).

I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon buys either Minolta(for the anti-shake) or goes into closer partnership with Fuji to codevelop new sensors. I'm also closely following Sony, as it appears they're looking into getting into the consumer DSLR territory. It'll be interesting to see a company who hasn't made cameras since the 1940s do their take on the DSLR.

Should be an interesting few years in the camera world.

 

[-hh]

(Paying for glass)

Man this is so true. I bought my 20D with a 17-85IS lens, 70-300IS and a 50 1.8 (fantastic), and then quickly sold those (not the 50 though) to get a 17-40 4L, 70-200 4L, 24-70 2.8, and now I am looking at the 24-105IS 4L, 100-400L or 300IS 4L. I still can't justify a +2k lens, but I am working on it

My history has generally been a deference to slow ISO films...I still have two bricks of Kodak Royal Gold (ISO 25) on ice. As a preference, this has resulted in the expected challenges with the typical consumer-grade zoom lenses which aren't particularly fast.

Piecing together the last decade or so, my lens evolution (Canon) has been as follows:

a. New Elan IIe ... with a Tamron 28-200mm instead of the kit lens.

b. Replaced (a) to the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.

c. Added an inexpensive 50mm f/1-point something think that I would use it with my Cokin Filters collection with....which hasn't happened.

d. Tried the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 consumer lens, but promptly returned it after test-shooting it ... realized that it was "too slow" without the IS, so I bought the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS instead.

e. Added a Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 wide angle.

f. Just bought this morning (ETA is around a week) a 20D body and the EF 70-200 L IS f/2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter as a new telephoto system.

What lies ahead for me is a couple of things to think about:

1. Telephoto duplication...keep or ditch the 75-300 IS? In its favor, its a light lens that's easy to day hike with.

2. Focal lengths...I travelled to Peru last year, and had to pack very light for the trip, so I stripped my lenses down to just the WA and telephoto (d + e). What I found was that I didn't miss not having anything between 36mm-74mm. So even though the 28-135mm has been a respectiable "if you can only carry one" all-around lens, this is suggesting that perhaps it should go.

3. Wide Angle...the Tokina's an okay lens, but I know that I'll be tempted to upgrade it. Since I want to keep all my lenses compatible with 35mm, this eliminates any of the EF-S options. Probably the best thing to do is to let this sleeping dog lie until my wife recovers for a few years from the price tag from (f).


FWIW, I was also thinking about the 100-400 IS f/4-5.6, but decided on the 70-200 IS f/2.8 instead. Partly because I've heard a bit of 'unflattering' comments about the 100-400's push-pull acting as an bellows (air pump) to increase CMOS dusting even without lens removal. However, what I've really come to realize is that its a trade-off of "reach" versus "speed". Particuarly with digital, cropping to increase effective manification is quite straightforward, but its not as easy to "add more light" in low light conditions. As such, I've leaned towards speed instead of reach for this telephoto upgrade....afterall, I probably need several more years for Canon's EF 400L DO IS f/4 to drop well below its current $5500 sticker price!

-hh

 

[stoid]

Well, I think I've made up my mind, here's my selected gear (probably purchasing this weekend).

Canon Rebel XT (EOS D350) body only – $750 @ buydig.com
Canon EF 75-300 mm 4-5.6 III Lens – $170 @ buydig.com
Tamron AF 28-80 mm 3.5-5.6 Aspherical Lens - $60 @ digitalfotoclub.com
Canon ip6600D photo printer (to triple the rebate values) - $180 @ tigerdirect.com

total cost: $1,160

rebates:
3x Rebel XT: $225
3x Canon Lens: $15
3x ip6600D: $75

total rebates: $315

cost after rebates: $845

sell printer on eBay: ~$115

final cost: $730

For that price, the package simply can't be beat! I understand that these are cheap crappy lenses, but all the lenses that got decent reviews are $400+ and that's more than I want to spend as a beginner, and a college student pinching pennies. If I really like photography, and find that I can make money selling prints or otherwise capitalize on this investment, I will save up and get some nicer lens, but at this point I just can't justify the money.

Does anyone have specific objections/suggestions before I drop the bills on this? Once again THANK YOU for all your input so far!

 

[madmaxmedia]

Please, please, PLEASE add the Canon 50mm 1.8 to your outfit. It's only $60 or $70 brand new, and it will far outperform those other lenses. For a DSLR beginner on a budget, it is an excellent lens. I understand your other lens choices, as they will give you wide zoom range on a budget. But the 50mm is really 'the' budget lens- it's sharper than any Canon zoom under $500 or so (primes are just easier and cheaper to make.)

The 1.6 crop factor makes it 80mm, which is great for portraits. It is also great at natural/low light shooting, f1.8 and ISO 400 will give you great results. People say the bokeh sucks compared to the Canon 50mm 1.4, but that's a $300 lens. The bokeh is fine, unless you are very particular about that sort of thing.

My web site has mainly pictures of my daughters, most of which were taken with this lens. (http://www.madmaxmedia.com). They are significantly resized so you can't really assess sharpness, but low depth of field at 1.8-2.5 is great for people photos. Just picking a couple of random ones, you can get some idea for detail in this lens-

http://www.madmaxmedia.com/photos/march2004/img_5041.htm
http://www.madmaxmedia.com/photos/march2004/img_5167.htm
(obviously depth of field can be really low at 1.8 if subject is close)

I think you made a great choice, as I love my Rebel (and previously my D30.) Enjoy!!!

 

[PCMacUser]

Please, please, PLEASE add the Canon 50mm 1.8 to your outfit. It's only $60 or $70 brand new, and it will far outperform those other lenses.

Stoid, please take madmax's advice! You won't regret getting the 50mm 1.8 - the value/quality is amazing.

 

[stoid]

Stoid, please take madmax's advice! You won't regret getting the 50mm 1.8 - the value/quality is amazing.

Bingo, that's exactly the kind of advice I was looking for!

Would you suggest getting the EF 50 1.8 instead of the Tamron? Or in addition to the other two lenses. Since I am getting in so cheap, I wouldn't mind getting another entry lens, especially one that is so cheap and clearly worth the money.

 

[madmaxmedia]

Bingo, that's exactly the kind of advice I was looking for!

Would you suggest getting the EF 50 1.8 instead of the Tamron? Or in addition to the other two lenses. Since I am getting in so cheap, I wouldn't mind getting another entry lens, especially one that is so cheap and clearly worth the money.

Hmm...tough choice depending on what you anticipate shooting. What I might suggest is getting the Canon 50 instead of the Tamron for now. Walk around, shoot with it a bit. If you decide that the effective 80mm is too long, then maybe get the Tamron after. This lens is actually on my Rebel 90% of the time, I mainly reach for my 28-105 when I'm taking my camera to a social ocasion or something like that, or if I need some telephoto.

Another possible choice would be to stick to the Canon, and save up for something like the Canon USM 28-105 F3.5-4.5 (there are different Canon 28-105 lenses, the other ones are crappy bundle lenses.) It has true ring-type USM, which is quiet, superfast, and allows to you manually focus at any time (you don't have to switch between AF and MF.) If you haven't tried a Canon ring-USM lens, then you need to go to a camera shop and play around with one- they're pretty amazing (not that other brands might not have similar tech.) The Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 is pretty widely regarded as an excellent value for the money.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004YZQ8/103-2449088-0619865?v=glance&n=502394&v=glance

I own this lens. With the crop factor it is not wide angle on the Rebel, but is a good all-around lens. The USM makes it a joy to use.

http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test2.htm
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=206&sort=7&thecat=27
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/28zooms.html
http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product?product_id=309

It's definitely more than the Tamron, but still a low to mid-priced lens. The Tamron may give you better quality to price ratio for what you want at this time though. But if you end up really getting into your photography, you won't regret saving up for this lens vs. the Tamron. There are of course better more expensive lenses, but I'm a budget shopper like you and have always looked for the best value at lower ranges.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Well, I think I've made up my mind, here's my selected gear (probably purchasing this weekend).

For that price, the package simply can't be beat! I understand that these are cheap crappy lenses, but all the lenses that got decent reviews are $400+ and that's more than I want to spend as a beginner, and a college student pinching pennies. If I really like photography, and find that I can make money selling prints or otherwise capitalize on this investment, I will save up and get some nicer lens, but at this point I just can't justify the money.

Does anyone have specific objections/suggestions before I drop the bills on this? Once again THANK YOU for all your input so far!

First you might want to be sure that the places you are buying from are Canon authorized dealers or resellers. Secondly, with the 28-80 zoom you will not have a wide angle field of view. You might want to see about buying the 6220 printer in order to save some cash outlay.

Lastly, it is great to try and save money. But where are you going to turn to for support? And if there are problems getting the rebates, will any of these places help you out? My store does make calls on customers behalf for missing rebates. At the shop I work for, we don't charge our customers for shipping or handling of warranty repairs.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Bingo, that's exactly the kind of advice I was looking for!

Would you suggest getting the EF 50 1.8 instead of the Tamron? Or in addition to the other two lenses. Since I am getting in so cheap, I wouldn't mind getting another entry lens, especially one that is so cheap and clearly worth the money.

Personally I think that the field of view on the 50mm is too tele for a first "solo" lens. The kit lens for the XT, the 18-55 despite some comments is a great lens to start off with - till you get a better idea of your real needs and have extra cash to spend.

 

[Clix Pix]

But where are you going to turn to for support? And if there are problems getting the rebates, will any of these places help you out? My store does make calls on customers behalf for missing rebates. At the shop I work for, we don't charge our customers for shipping or handling of warranty repairs.

This is a very important point, and one which has given me pause when I've seen prices online that sound just too good to be true. Are they? Why? Is the vendor actually pushing a gray-market product? Or will they try to foist a lot of "extras" on me that I don't need or want (which of course subsequently increases their profit and the cost to me). What is my recourse if I buy an expensive camera or lens and something goes wonky? How can the online vendor help me long-distance over the phone when I have a problem? WILL they help me over the phone?

For many years I have dealt with a local camera shop and in spite of all the temptations of online buying (no state sales tax, sometimes free or inexpensive shipping) I will continue to give the local guys my business because I know that when I have a problem with that new camera or that new lens, I can go right to them and say, "help!" and I'll be given prompt, attentive service and the problem will be resolved.

The new D200 has finally been announced and will be appearing at camera dealers everywhere. I'll be heading out to my local store to look it over, handle it and perhaps (OK, yeah, well, probably) buy it.... Sure, I could probably get it for less money at B&H or some other camera store online, but the personal service is only available right here at my local store, and that's worth a LOT.....

OTB

 

[Ghetto Sheep]

I spent about 2 moths deciding on a digital SLR so i think i can help you out here. I ended up buying a D70 over the Canon Rebel, Rebel XT and 20D for a few reasons. The first being i didnt want to spend about $2000 for a 20D with a good lens. I got the D70 because every camera store employee recommended it to me over the Canon as well as the fact that the canon has possibly the most damage prone body ever. The fact that i would have to spend about $500 more just to get a lens comparable to the nikon version. The lens that comes iwth the rebel is basically crap. You can throw it away. Generally nikon and canon lenses are equally good. The one difference was price. If money is somewhat an issue i really suggest Nikon. Their lenses usually cost less than Canon. When buying nice lenses even a small percent difference could mean a lot of money. Also, i know a few professional photographers who actually use a nikon D70 as backup to the D2X's. You dont see any Canon pros using a rebel. It just looks and feels cheep. I am extremely pleased with my purchase of a D70 and i think if you are entering the market without a real collection of lenses in canon you would be better off with a nikon.