psycho bob said:
Third party lenses are great values. The concern with Sigma and Canon is that sometimes when Canon comes out with a new body, the Sigma lenses sometimes need to be rechipped.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
DSLR for Beginner
- Thread starter cwright
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Third party lenses are great values. The concern with Sigma and Canon is that sometimes when Canon comes out with a new body, the Sigma lenses sometimes need to be rechipped.
Moxiemike said:Lots of mis-info here!
Gosh. the 28-200mm range is probably the most POPULAR but it's not the best. Secondly, a 28-200 zoom is a BAD choice! You're asking ENTIRELY too much from a lens at that range. I'd suggest a 12-24 Sigma (~18-35 on a DSLR) and a 70-200 (~105-300). That gets your wide and your telephoto bases cover. Add in a 24mm or 35mm prime, a 50mm prime and an 85mm prime and you have all of your bases covered with QUALITY glass. Which REALLY is the key to DSLR image quality.
Primes will generally be better than zooms. And shorter ratio zooms are generally better than longer ratio zooms. But for 80% of the market the 28-200 or 28-300 zooms can perform to their expectations. With advances in lens design they work quite well.
A decent photo shop will allow a customer to try out a lens to make sure it meets expectations.
Chip NoVaMac said:
Obviously, a low cost zoom is not going to be so wonderful and too much zoom in a small housing is inviting trouble.
I only have 3 lenses with my Olympus E-1: a 14-54 (28-108), 50-200 (100-400), and a 50mm (100) macro. They work quite well and they're reasonably fast (f2.8-f3.5 for the zooms, f2.0 for the macro) but expensive. They cover the whole range I need but I'm light on wide angles.
Olympus this week just announced zoom lenses where the maximum aperture doesn't vary. They're f2.8 (maybe 2.0) for the entire zoom range. I would imagine them as conical to achieve such a thing.
Moxiemike said:
Caveat: the D70 body, which several people in this thread believe feels more "substantial" in their hands than its Canon counterpart, is also constructed using plastic. No magnesium or other metal frame here.
Besides, I've dropped my 300d enough times to feel embarassed about the knicks and dings on the body. Self deprecation aside, the body is still functioning perfectly. The scratches are barely noticeable, and the camera still works flawlessly. If you're REALLY worried about the durablity of your camera body, be more worried about that 1000 dollar piece of glass attached to the front end of it... it's more fragile than any dslr body you can name
bousozoku said:
You have to realize that I sell this stuff everyday. I have to look at the needs of the customer, not just my biases towards higher quality gear. Just look at my avatar and see where my standards are.
Yours and moxie's comments are from the 20% that demand and want the highest quality possible. Tamron and Sigma have sold million or so of the super zooms. They could not do that if there was not satisfaction with the image quality.
I think it's safe to say that the camera will *not* be the limiting factor for a beginner (like myself). It's all about what you do with it. Yes, a $3000 camera will be better, but it won't help you take better pictures. I have a friend who bought a 1D, and sold it a couple of months later. Too much, and a total waste of money. He then got a Rebel and spent the rest on lenses (that was a fun evening spent web shopping...).
I really can't stress this enough: think about lenses. If you are working on a budget, at least expect to spend 50% of it on lenses. Perhaps not in the first weeks, but you will. And by all means: do *not* go for the biggest zoom money can buy unless you know that you need it. Some people (like me...) really though long and hard about what lense to get. After I got my camera, i realized that zoom was the least important factor. To me it was all about the normal range: 20mm-50mm.
Good luck, and enjoy. Oh - and the new Rebel looks like a steal!
I really can't stress this enough: think about lenses. If you are working on a budget, at least expect to spend 50% of it on lenses. Perhaps not in the first weeks, but you will. And by all means: do *not* go for the biggest zoom money can buy unless you know that you need it. Some people (like me...) really though long and hard about what lense to get. After I got my camera, i realized that zoom was the least important factor. To me it was all about the normal range: 20mm-50mm.
Good luck, and enjoy. Oh - and the new Rebel looks like a steal!
Chip NoVaMac said:
I know there have been problems but anyone buying a lens and camera combination now will be ok. The fact is even with Nikon not all their lenses will support the autofocus functioning of the latest cameras even though the mount is the same. Some Canon lenses have the same issue to. It isn't limited to Sigma lenses on Canon cameras. At the end of the day it is what the manufacturer will do to rectify the situation that counts but you should always try lenses out first anyway at least if you are new to photography.
I still feel both the new Canon 350 and even the outgoing Nikon represent in the eyes of the public the only real options below the $1k mark which is a shame as there is more great kit to be found. If I was choosing I'd get the Nikon, paper specs only take you so far. The latest 8 megapixel sensors haven't exactly got outstanding reviews on the whole. You could probably find an outgoing Canon 10D at a great price, I know in the UK they can be found body only for below £600.
"Yea. I'd head straight for the PRO forum on fredmiranda.com instead. Much more knowledge to be had there."
Totally. The caliber of photographer at Fred Miranda is totally off the scale in comparison to DPREVIEW.
Totally. The caliber of photographer at Fred Miranda is totally off the scale in comparison to DPREVIEW.
Jon'sLightBulbs said:Caveat: the D70 body, which several people in this thread believe feels more "substantial" in their hands than its Canon counterpart, is also constructed using plastic. No magnesium or other metal frame here.
Besides, I've dropped my 300d enough times to feel embarassed about the knicks and dings on the body. Self deprecation aside, the body is still functioning perfectly. The scratches are barely noticeable, and the camera still works flawlessly. If you're REALLY worried about the durablity of your camera body, be more worried about that 1000 dollar piece of glass attached to the front end of it... it's more fragile than any dslr body you can name
Don't ever feel embarrassed about dings and knicks. It makes you look more "pro" to have a beat up camera.
That said, I don't recall nikon every saying whatthe d70 subframe is, though I am gonna guess plastic. It's much less sturdy that the D100 which was a metal frame. So i'll guess plastic, but i don't think anyone ever cleared up that argument, though the consensus is plastic. That said, it's WAY more robust than the 300d and probably as robust as the 10d, IMHO, plastic or not. Definitely on par with the D100 too.
Chip NoVaMac said:
I know that they work because most people are also happy with the built-in flash on their cameras.
I know you have to sell the stuff and I'm sure you're accomplished at selling what is pertinent.
You know that I agree with you almost all the time anyway. I just can't believe...oh wait...people use Windows, too.
bousozoku said:
The Oly stuff is f2.0 which, if you know anything about lens designs, is HUGE. F2.0 zooms? Never existed before. So yea. If i was a first time buyer interested in quality, i'd certainly probably go olympus at this point.
They're really the people innovating on this front. Seriously. Low noise isn't a big deal. Megapixels? So what. F2.0 zooms? Holy crap I want them all! haha.
I honestly believe that getting the best possible glass keeps your noise down, helps your exposure, helps your image quality (sharpness, saturation, etc).....
So this to me, if they're HQ, (which given oly's track record--they're impressive) is a bigger advance (and technologically a pretty huge step) than 16mp CMOS CCD's with 2x 1.5x and FF modes that have zero noise on the latest Canikon 1d2x mk III
I think years after the canon nikon debates are done, Olympus might very well be chillin' at the top of the heap with some FUJI 4/3s sensors with no noise at ISO 3200 and 27mp. Seriously.
Mike, since so many look at megapixel count in deciding on cameras, the Olympus is not as "bad" as some think. The sensor on the E series is a near perfect match to an 8x10 print size. One would have to crop out a megapixel worth of the frame on a 6MP APS-C sensor to get the 8x10.
iGary said:
Check this out and have a pretty good lens set up to boot.
Estimated street price is between $10K and $12K.
Moxiemike said:
The two smaller zooms are f2.0 over the entire range, the larger is f2.8 over its range. We've been waiting for this for 30+ years. Is it any wonder I love Olympus? <waits for the naysayers> Ask me why I've had 5 Olympus cameras? <bows head in honour of dead OM-1N>
Well, I look at what the others are doing as haphazard compromise. Remember the OM-1? It did away with the old stuff and gave the world a lighter camera and a brighter viewfinder. The Zuiko lenses even kept Nikon users wondering why they were lugging all that extra weight.
I think Olympus will once again change the photographic landscape with better designs and the rest will follow, again. Sound like some other company?
bousozoku said:The two smaller zooms are f2.0 over the entire range, the larger is f2.8 over its range. We've been waiting for this for 30+ years. Is it any wonder I love Olympus? <waits for the naysayers> Ask me why I've had 5 Olympus cameras? <bows head in honour of dead OM-1N>
Well, I look at what the others are doing as haphazard compromise. Remember the OM-1? It did away with the old stuff and gave the world a lighter camera and a brighter viewfinder. The Zuiko lenses even kept Nikon users wondering why they were lugging all that extra weight.
I think Olympus will once again change the photographic landscape with better designs and the rest will follow, again. Sound like some other company?
Have you seen the pics over on DPReview? These lenses are HUGE! Still sweet, but was hoping for just a little smaller. They di it back in the OM days with some of the super speed lenses for that series.
iGary said:
Are you buying?
bousozoku: on dpreview, it seems everyone wants to compare Nikon or Canon to Apple. Neither really innovates (although the WiFi on the D2h was close. though not really all that useful. the newer one is what this one SHOULD have been) but all told, I'd have to give Oly the nod.
I think that evolt, despite it's craptastic name (who the **** got to name that product!?!?) is a revolutionary design in SLR cameras. The 4/3 doesn't thrill me too much though, Chip. I know the whole 35mm format is more akin to say, 8x12, but at 16x24 and larger sizes, it's easier to crop for frames at the large end.
That said, I suppose 8x10 is the key print size, so it works wonders for that.
I remember using a 4/3's p&s cam, the Minolta Dimage 7i, and my friend, who had a 3:2 kodak p&s was SO disappointed that he would love some stuff in his crop. Especially when you're taught to use the whole frame.
bousozoku, you have an e-1 right? you should post some samples. i'm curious to see some real world looks on that cam.
Moxiemike said:Are you buying?
bousozoku: on dpreview, it seems everyone wants to compare Nikon or Canon to Apple. Neither really innovates (although the WiFi on the D2h was close. though not really all that useful. the newer one is what this one SHOULD have been) but all told, I'd have to give Oly the nod.
I think that evolt, despite it's craptastic name (who the **** got to name that product!?!?) is a revolutionary design in SLR cameras. The 4/3 doesn't thrill me too much though, Chip. I know the whole 35mm format is more akin to say, 8x12, but at 16x24 and larger sizes, it's easier to crop for frames at the large end.
That said, I suppose 8x10 is the key print size, so it works wonders for that.
I remember using a 4/3's p&s cam, the Minolta Dimage 7i, and my friend, who had a 3:2 kodak p&s was SO disappointed that he would love some stuff in his crop. Especially when you're taught to use the whole frame.
bousozoku, you have an e-1 right? you should post some samples. i'm curious to see some real world looks on that cam.
I've never called that thing the Evolt. As far as I'm concerned, it's the E-300 and some American marketing person just wanted to curb the chance for grey marketers to sell other versions here. It's a handy size without the pentaprism but I really dislike the layout of buttons on the back. Not only is it unituitive, it's exactly like the Canon 300D where you have to pull the camera away from your face to change settings. As ChipNoVaMac would tell me, I'm in a different category for usage but good ergonomics don't lie.
The 4:3 aspect ratio is a pain sometimes but I sell several prints on 13x19 with excellent sharpness still. It would be nice to have a more flexible size but after recovering some scanned 24x36 negatives, I think I don't care that much.
There should be an E-1 thread that I posted when I got mine and I have a few samples hanging out there somewhere in Picture Gallery. Here's one from after Hurricane Charley. I love the colour.
Attachments
bousozoku said:
Not such a bad thing when it is Olympus USA bears the cost of importation and warranty repairs. Though this is less an issue as the US $ is in the tank right now.
It's a handy size without the pentaprism but I really dislike the layout of buttons on the back. Not only is it unituitive, it's exactly like the Canon 300D where you have to pull the camera away from your face to change settings. As ChipNoVaMac would tell me, I'm in a different category for usage but good ergonomics don't lie.
I was hoping for my "digital Leica" when I first saw the E-300 reports. And with the Olympus E System lens road map, there are some primes that might make this a good overall system for those looking for such a beast.
The major downer for me on the E-300 is that silly bump on the grip. Damn uncomfortable IMO. Ergonomically, everyone is a bit different. I rather like the four button "star" on the 300D, over what I have on the 10D. I am still out on the info on the top, verses the back thing.
In either case that is why I suggest that people try the cameras out at a good shop first. Maybe I am a different salesperson, but I do illustrate the differences on the 20D and the 300D on setting of some popular settings. In the end I allow the customer to decide.
The 4:3 aspect ratio is a pain sometimes but I sell several prints on 13x19 with excellent sharpness still. It would be nice to have a more flexible size but after recovering some scanned 24x36 negatives, I think I don't care that much.
There should be an E-1 thread that I posted when I got mine and I have a few samples hanging out there somewhere in Picture Gallery. Here's one from after Hurricane Charley. I love the colour.
the whole 4:3 ratio thing is more how one has trained their eye for shooting. As much as I would love to love the E-300, this is one block I have. In my years I have basically got my self into the 24x36 format when trying to shoot.
In regards to the color from the E-1, this is the strongest reason for many going to this camera. I know of a former Nikon rep that made the change to the E-1 because of the color aspect being #1.
Hey guys, sorry I've been away from this thread for a while. Looks like it hasnt stopped anyone though
Well I've decided on the Digital Rebel XT. The 20D would be nice, but I don't need something that fancy for now (maybe my next camera will be a 30D, who knows), and I'd rather spend the extra $500 or so on lenses anyway.
Which brings me to my next point... I know I've gone back and forth on many different lense options in this thread, so bear with me
I have narrowed it down to two options:
Option 1: get the kit lens, and add the EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
Option 2: get the body only, and then buy the Sigma 18-125mm or one of the new 18-200mm zooms. I believe Sigma already has an 18-200 and Tamron is releasing one soon.
With either option I would be adding the Canon 50mm f/1.8 immediately or very soon after the initial purchase.
I would love having an 18-125 or 18-200 range in one lens, but I'm hearing mixed reviews of those superzooms, and the Canon 28-105 is a much better lens. Unless I'm mistaken, I think the 18-28 range I'd lose on the 28-105 would not be used often enough for me to have to carry two lenses with me at all times. Again, i'm not shooting anything specific... this is just for use as a walk-around lens.
If I bought the kit lens and the 28-105 now, then maybe later I could save up for one of Canon's nice wide angle lenses as well.
Thoughts?
Well I've decided on the Digital Rebel XT. The 20D would be nice, but I don't need something that fancy for now (maybe my next camera will be a 30D, who knows), and I'd rather spend the extra $500 or so on lenses anyway.
Which brings me to my next point... I know I've gone back and forth on many different lense options in this thread, so bear with me
I have narrowed it down to two options:
Option 1: get the kit lens, and add the EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
Option 2: get the body only, and then buy the Sigma 18-125mm or one of the new 18-200mm zooms. I believe Sigma already has an 18-200 and Tamron is releasing one soon.
With either option I would be adding the Canon 50mm f/1.8 immediately or very soon after the initial purchase.
I would love having an 18-125 or 18-200 range in one lens, but I'm hearing mixed reviews of those superzooms, and the Canon 28-105 is a much better lens. Unless I'm mistaken, I think the 18-28 range I'd lose on the 28-105 would not be used often enough for me to have to carry two lenses with me at all times. Again, i'm not shooting anything specific... this is just for use as a walk-around lens.
If I bought the kit lens and the 28-105 now, then maybe later I could save up for one of Canon's nice wide angle lenses as well.
Thoughts?
If you are considering the Canon kit lens of the 18-55, you may be better off looking at the Sigma or Tamron offerings.
It is too soon to say, but if the Tamron 18-200 equals the performance of their 28-300, you would be hard pressed to find much better. The only part that keeps me from being totally positive about Sigma is continued reports that lenses need to be re-chipped as Canon comes out with new bodies. This may not happen for a generation or two, but it does happen more often with Sigma Canon mount lenses that some of the others.
It is too soon to say, but if the Tamron 18-200 equals the performance of their 28-300, you would be hard pressed to find much better. The only part that keeps me from being totally positive about Sigma is continued reports that lenses need to be re-chipped as Canon comes out with new bodies. This may not happen for a generation or two, but it does happen more often with Sigma Canon mount lenses that some of the others.
Here's another approach. Get the kit lens, and just use that for awhile to get a feel for what you wanna do. It doesn't sound like you really know for sure yet.
If you end up upgrading, you will sell that 18-55 for close to $100 anyway. But to start with, it's a decent lens with a good working range. You may find it's more than long enough, or who knows maybe you want a zoom that goes to 200 or 300 mm.
If it turns out you shoot within a certain range most of the time, then you may spend more on a single lens, instead of going out and buying 3 lens with your camera and finding out later you only need 1.
As far as wide angle goes, Tokina makes a pretty decent 19-35 for EOS, I'm actually selling mine on EBay right now because it turned out I barely shoot WA:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3877745451
Probably not of any use for you now though. I bought it after some extensive discussion with others on DPreview.com, which is a pretty good source of info about lenses.
If you end up upgrading, you will sell that 18-55 for close to $100 anyway. But to start with, it's a decent lens with a good working range. You may find it's more than long enough, or who knows maybe you want a zoom that goes to 200 or 300 mm.
If it turns out you shoot within a certain range most of the time, then you may spend more on a single lens, instead of going out and buying 3 lens with your camera and finding out later you only need 1.
As far as wide angle goes, Tokina makes a pretty decent 19-35 for EOS, I'm actually selling mine on EBay right now because it turned out I barely shoot WA:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3877745451
Probably not of any use for you now though. I bought it after some extensive discussion with others on DPreview.com, which is a pretty good source of info about lenses.
hey guys... sorry for resurrecting this thread once again.
I just wanted to let everyone know that I finally got all my money together and I purchased the (black) Digital Rebel XT tonight! I got the kit lens to start with, and a 2GB Lexar CF card.
I cant wait to start using it next week!
BTW, I got lucky and found that Dell's website is offering 15% off Digital SLRs through tomorrow. After the added sales tax (and free shipping), I saved about $100.
Thanks again for all your help!!
I just wanted to let everyone know that I finally got all my money together and I purchased the (black) Digital Rebel XT tonight! I got the kit lens to start with, and a 2GB Lexar CF card.
I cant wait to start using it next week!
BTW, I got lucky and found that Dell's website is offering 15% off Digital SLRs through tomorrow. After the added sales tax (and free shipping), I saved about $100.
Thanks again for all your help!!