DSLR question

[tvgordon]

Later on this year, I plan (maybe I should say hope) to have enough money saved for a dslr and accessories.

My question is should I buy an entry level dslr (Canon xti, Nikon d60) or buy a mid-level dslr (Canon 40d or Nikon d300)?  I've seen many people selling their Canon xti cameras on ebay because they bought a Canon 40d.  I'm wondering if anyone bought an entry level camera and wished they had bought (or ended up buying) a mid-level camera?  Or if you bought a mid-level and wished you would have saved the money by buying an entry level camera.

I have a digital camera and a film slr now, so I have some experience with cameras. Most of my photos are of nature and wildlife and, of course, woodworking projects.

Thanks for your help.

Tom.

 

[johne]

tvgordon,

I believe that there is litlle differences in image quality between cameras like the canon xti (or 400d as it is called over here) and the canon 40d.
The main difference is in body size (40d is a bit bigger) and may have some more features. My advice to anyone buying a camera is get good glass (lenses)
first and worry about the body later. The resolution between the two camera's is not really different although the 40d may look cooler.

For a comparison between the 2 camera's you may want to take a look at www.dpreview.com they have tests of both and also images shot by both cameras.

It is really hard to give any good unbiased advice to anyone about camera bodies since so much has to do with user preferences and perception. ( a lot of people still think that if they buy the more expensive camera they will take better pictures) You take the pics not the camera.

To repeat what i said before: I would rather have a body with lesser specs and good glass than the other way around. If you grow out of the entry level body you could always get a better one but your lenses will still be as good.

Hope this helps

 

[Administrator_JSVN]

I have a Canon xti and have been very pleased with the quality of the photos.  While most of my photography is just of the kids and vacations and such, this camera produces more than acceptable photos.  The only thing I would recommend is a telephoto lens (which I still need to get).

 

[mastercabman]

tvgordon,what kind/brand of film slr do you have?
as far as dslr,you just need to look at them,try them and see how it feels in your hands.
more expensive models doesn't mean better pictures,but it could mean better feel,better control,faster auto focus,and so on!
are you going to do sport photo?weddings?landscape?    for general use,the rebel will be fine
keep in mind that digital cameras moves very fast!
what i mean is that,manufacturer are constantly changing their cameras model.
you buy a 40d now,and it will be discontinued withing 1-2 years.      to make room for the 50d?!?
maybe a new version of the rebel will come out soon and will be better than the 40d.
it was never like this before with film base cameras.
for example,back in 1971 canon introduced the f1,and they said that they will not touch the camera for 10 years! they kept their promise,they redesigned the f1 in 1981 with the new f1 (aka f1n)

 

[Ned]

I would rather have a body with lesser specs and good glass than the other way around.

Absolutely agree with Johne.  One way to make sure you do that is to buy the body and lens separately.  Lenses  included in kits are seldom top quality.

If I had 1500 USD to spend, I'd get a 500 buck body and a 1000 dollar lens.

If you're happy with your film SLR, that could be a good reason to buy the same brand dSLR.

One pleasant surprise for you:  Since the sensor in all the cameras you mentioned is smaller than the 35mm film area, your lenses end up "growing".  In the case of the Canons you mentioned, the factor is 1.6, so your 100mm lens will be in effect a 160, and your 200 a 320.  This is great news for wildlife photographers, because a smaller, lighter camera/lens combo will give you more "reach", but bad news for the wide-angle fans--there just isn't any free lunch.

I think the factor for the Nikons is 1.5, otherwise the comments apply equally.

Ned

 

[Dan Lyke]

I've got an older Canon D60, and there are a few differences between it and the "Digital Rebel" (whatever that model was actually called at the time), I think they're mostly related to how many images the camera can buffer in fast shooting mode (I think I get 7 frames before a pause, the low end body gets 3). The main reason I went with the higher end back (besides circumstances that gave me a good deal on it) was that I was used to the interface of the Canon film bodies, and this camera has all the dials in the places I expect them.

Were I buying a new body today I'd seriously look at one of the lower end SLRs. The Canon line appears to use the same sensors and image processing, so the differences are in things like burst modes and how the knobs feel.

On the Canon vs Nikon thing, after being a Canon user for a decade, with both film and digital, I think it boils down to which feels better in your hands.

 

[Dan Clark]

I use a Nikon D70 DSLR.  A key reason that I bought it was that it felt much better in my hands than did the Canon cameras of that time. 

It's a very good camera in many ways.  Unfortunately, it has a few warts.  For example, noise in low light is fairly poor.  For example, anything above about 1000 ISO gives you a pretty noisy image.  I still love it and it has given me some good shots.  But the technology is about 3-1/2 years old.

Now things have changed for the better for both Nikon and Canon.  The new Nikon D60 and D80 are great consumer cams.  The D300 is WONDERFUL.  They have excellent features and feel even better in my hands.  Their low light performance is now excellent.   

On the Canon side, they have maintained the features that they were famous for (low light performance being a key one) and have improved many other features.  For example, I wandered into Best Buy the other day (looking at video cameras) and picked up one of the newer Canon DSLRs.  I noticed that it too felt very nice in my hands - BIG improvement in the last three years or so.

Regarding lenses, both Nikon and Canon both make great lenses.  Three years ago, Nikon had an excellent selection of wide angles but it's long lenses were a little long in the tooth.  Canon was the opposite - excellent selection of longer lenses, but a more limited selection of wide angles.  And Nikon's VR (vibration reduction) was only present on a few lenses, while Canon's image stabilization more broadly available. 

Fast forward to today...  Both companies have worked hard to fill in the gaps and stabilization is available on a wide variety of lenses from both companies.   

The only area where I think there is some meaningful difference is in the flashes.  I believe that Nikon holds a lead in their flash systems.  My SB800 works seamlessly with D70 and the newer Nikons leverage the flashes even better.  That's not to say that Canon makes bad flashes, but that Nikon has maintained a bit of a lead.

In other words, you'll do great with either company.  The exact balance will shift depending on your needs and price point.    DP Review is the best site for quality camera info.  Check out the reviews.  The go play with the cameras.  For nature and woodworking, you'll probably use wide angles zooms - say about 17 - 50 mm (assuming a 1.5 or 1.6 conversion factor).  For wild life, you'll need a long lens 300mm plus.  Try to find the best lenses within your budget that fit those criteria.

Good luck,

Dan.

 

[ccmviking]

Everyone buys off Megapixels now days which isn't really all that important.  Unless you are taking photo's that you'll enlarge and print at 3'X5' or larger you won't notice much difference.  A 6 megapixel camera will print letter/legal size photo quality very well.  I am a fan of Nikon camera's and of course everyone is fond of their own brand.  For Entry level if you get a D40 camera will do just fine.  Paying another $1,500 to get a D300 setup won't enable you to take any better photo's until you learn more about what you are doing.  You need to get a good flash and lens to go with what you are wanting to photograph.  My opinion is that the Canon's body and controls feel cheap.  They are good camera's but they just don't feel it.

Here's a site to read some more. http://www.kenrockwell.com

Chris...

 

[Allen Akin]

I think Dan's opinion is good advice.  Start there.

I've been a Nikon owner for several generations of camera bodies (since the F2), and delayed my transition from film to digital for quite a while (as a computer graphics guy, my standards for the digital side of the product were high, and haven't been met until the last few generations).  As a consequence, I have a collection of Nikkor lenses that I understand and appreciate, so I'm reluctant to switch.  My next camera body probably will be a Nikon.

Nevertheless, for people who are entering the game now, I usually recommend Canon.  I have to emphasize that this is a slight preference, but for the past 8 to 10 years, I find that the features I value most appear first in the Canon line and slightly later in the Nikon line.  Image stabilization in the lens was an early example, and low-noise sensor performance in low-light conditions is a more recent example.

Buy the best fast lens you can afford and are willing to haul around. Carefully consider what type of photography is most important to you.  I carry good quality f/2.8 or better glass from 28mm to 200mm in most circumstances, but I mostly shoot landscapes and occasionally wildlife in uncertain lighting conditions.  This would be silly for urban or portrait or woodworking photography.  A friend who's a semi-professional now shoots everything with a recent Panasonic Lumix, and frankly, his work is better than mine.

I second the recommendation for dpreview.com.

Allen

 

[vteknical]

I chose a Fuji S3 Pro a couple years back because of the skin tones.  These days, most of entry level SLR camera's bodies have more than enough features that 95% of the people don't use or know how to use. 

Like others have already stated....buy the best lens you can afford.  A high quality lens does not depreciate like the camera body.  I bought a Nikon AFS 80-200 2.8 lens for 900.00 and sold it two years later for 950.00. 

 

[Dan Lyke]

One pleasant surprise for you:  Since the sensor in all the cameras you mentioned is smaller than the 35mm film area, your lenses end up "growing".

On the other hand... My beautiful 17-35/2.8 became a rather pedestrian 27-56 equivalent when I went to digital. The budget hasn't had more photography gear in it for a while, but I think that the current Canon line-up has a lens or two with reduced coverage (to match the digital sensor) that has a 10mm or so short end. If you like wide angle (and I find that very short lenses are surprisingly useful), it'd be worth looking into that.

 

[Greg B]

Finally! A subject that I can speak to with some experience behind me. I was a photographer for a number of years and sold photo equipment for years prior to that. Recently, I agonized through the same decision you have, since my wife and I welcomed our first child into the family. Plus having been a photographer, I have some reputation to uphold, right? Anyway, I still have some of my film equipment but knew I wanted to go digital and I've been holding off until I HAD to buy something. Long story short, I was deciding between Nikon's D40 and D300. I know that I can use the advanced features on the D300, but I really had to analyze what and how I was planning to shoot. And that has ultimately been the key, even back (ahem) 20+ years ago when I was peddling this stuff. Honestly evaluate what you are going to shoot and how (studio, field, off-the-cuff?) you are going to do it. The better you understand your actual usage and not your aspirational usage, the better choice you'll make.

It turns out that Ken Rockwell's site was some assistance and I ended up buying the D40 (small and fast to use) with Nikon's 18-200 zoom (covers a lot of ground without switching lenses, average, but passable performance). Don't, however, read his site without a healthy grain of salt. DP review gives you great hard numbers but not as much suitability for particular usage. Plus, by buying a more market mature camera, it was cheap! I also use a Canon XTi at work and bought Canon's superb 10-22mm and 75-300 lenses for that. They are two very different setups in actual use.

Good luck with your decision,

GB

 

[Ned]

I also use a Canon XTi at work and bought Canon's superb 10-22mm and 75-300 lenses for that. They are two very different setups in actual use.

Between the two Canon lenses, or between the Canon and the Nikon you bought?

Either way, tell us more please, Greg.

Ned

 

[ccmviking]

Most of the pic's I take are indoors (tight spaces are tough, of course) so I got the "Sigma 10-20 mm" lens which you will find mixed reviews on but works great for us.  If you are going for something wide angle read this post to get the difference between a 10mm rectilinear super wide (such as my sigma) and a 10mm fisheye. 

Chris...
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html

 

[johne]

just a thought,

These extreme wide angles (like a 10-22mm) are made specifically for the smaller sensor cameras. If you ever decide to upgrade to a full frame sensor camera these lenses will be useless because the imaging circle they provide is not big enough to cover a real 24x36mm sensor.

 

[Ned]

just a thought,

These extreme wide angles (like a 10-22mm) are made specifically for the smaller sensor cameras. If you ever decide to upgrade to a full frame sensor camera these lenses will be useless because the imaging circle they provide is not big enough to cover a real 24x36mm sensor.

Johne's right, and I've been mulling that over.  EF-S lenses (such as Canon's 10-22) can only be attached to their 1.6 cameras.  Those same cameras will also accept their EF lenses, so if you choose your lenses carefully and don't need a wide angle, you could move to a full-frame camera without leaving any lenses behind.

Ned

 

[tvgordon]

Thanks for all the replies!  More that what I expected. 

I've been looking at Cnet and dpreview and subscribe to a few photo mags.  I find it interesting that in the tests they will say, for example, a 14-mp entry level only produced the same number of lines as a 10-mp mid-priced model.  But, honestly, I'm using a Sony DSC-H5 now (it's around 7-mp) and I think it take great pictures.  I want a good enough image that I can crop later.

I'm looking for something that takes high quality images, has fast autofocus and quick shot-to-shot time.  My main complaint about the sony is slow start up, slow shutter lag and, unless I buy the converter lenses, not enough wide angle and long range capability.

My slr is a Nikon, but the D80 is the cheapest dslr that still has the autofocus drive in the camera.  The 40, 40x and 60 all have to use the lenses with the motors for autofocus.  So unless I buy the 80 or better, I may be able to use my lenses but wouldn't have autofocus.

I've also noticed by spending some time on ebay, that the nikon d80 isn't discounted nearly as much as the canon xti.  I read the xti is the best selling dslr now.  Is this the reason for the discounts or do Nikons hold their value better?  Even used d80s seem to sell just a little less than a new one.

Tom.

 

[CharlesWilson]

My slr is a Nikon, but the D80 is the cheapest dslr that still has the autofocus drive in the camera.  The 40, 40x and 60 all have to use the lenses with the motors for autofocus.  So unless I buy the 80 or better, I may be able to use my lenses but wouldn't have autofocus.

Isn't it great that you have the option of attaching your existing lenses to a current body. That is one of things you can expect from Nikon. That doesn't seem to be the case for the Canon lenses I have kicking around in my closet.

Charles

 

[mastercabman]

My slr is a Nikon, but the D80 is the cheapest dslr that still has the autofocus drive in the camera.  The 40, 40x and 60 all have to use the lenses with the motors for autofocus.  So unless I buy the 80 or better, I may be able to use my lenses but wouldn't have autofocus.

Isn't it great that you have the option of attaching your existing lenses to a current body. That is one of things you can expect from Nikon. That doesn't seem to be the case for the Canon lenses I have kicking around in my closet.

Charles

actually,canon lenses are more adaptable than nikon.
any canon ef auto focus lenses fits any eos body.
as for nikon,you maybe able to mount any lenses to any bodies,but a lots of lenses/bodies does not work together.

 

[Dan Lyke]

actually,canon lenses are more adaptable than nikon.
any canon ef auto focus lenses fits any eos body.

What Charles is referring to is the switchover from Canon FD screw mount lenses to Canon EF bayonet mount lenses that happened in 1987.