PDA

View Full Version : New SLR


artesc
2008-05-01, 19:04
Ok, so my girfriend is a photography major and she needs to get her first decent camera. She needs something that will work as an all around camera. She's barely going into her second year, so it doesn't have to be too "pro" just yet. I know there are a lot of people on here that are really knowledgeable about cameras, so I was hoping I could get a good response.

She's looking at around the $1000 level, give or take a smidgen. I've been looking around and I've basically narrowed it down to the Nikon D80 or Canon 40D (or maybe if it was really worth it, the Fuji S5 Pro). Any recommendations on one or the other would be very welcome. Also, any other suggestions would be really helpful. Thanks in advance! :)

Eugene
2008-05-01, 19:12
She's looking at around the $1000 level, give or take a smidgen. I've been looking around and I've basically narrowed it down to the Nikon D80 or Canon 40D (or maybe if it was really worth it, the Fuji S5 Pro). Any recommendations on one or the other would be very welcome. Also, any other suggestions would be really helpful. Thanks in advance! :)
Honestly I would just get the 450D/XSi over a 40D at this point. I also would not consider the Nikon D80 due to the inevitable launch of the D90. The D80 is built around 2.5 year old tech and it shows. As for the Fujifilm S5 Pro...always an intriguing option in terms of dynamic range, but comparably priced D300 has it beat in so many other areas it's not worth it.

Bottomline, $1000 to spend on a body = Canon EOS 450D/XSi...as much as I hate to recommend Canon.

artesc
2008-05-01, 20:20
what's wrong with cannon? and if she can wait, do think the D90 will be better or perhaps the successor to the 40D? historically, which brand is better. nikon or canon? I really have no clue about camera's, I'm completely a noob when it comes to in depth, detailed stuff.

lol I'm still using my trusty fuji s6000fd.

Eugene
2008-05-02, 00:01
what's wrong with cannon?
Nothing major, just a preference. I dislike in particular the way Canon deals with sensor noise...sacrificing color for contrast detail.

and if she can wait, do think the D90 will be better or perhaps the successor to the 40D? historically, which brand is better. nikon or canon? I really have no clue about camera's, I'm completely a noob when it comes to in depth, detailed stuff.
I have no idea when the D90 is coming.

veryamusing
2008-05-02, 01:05
I bought a Nikon D70 upon its introduction, and I've been very pleased with it. The D80 was a vast improvement, but I haven't felt like I "need" to upgrade just yet. I would have no reservations recommending the D80, except that as Eugene said, it's old tech.

I don't know why, but I've always preferred Nikon over Canon, though I think you'll find just as many people who prefer Nikon as those who prefer Canon. It's a personal matter. Ultimately, I don't think you can go wrong with either.

Artap99
2008-05-02, 03:07
Depending on her needs, you could easily get a D80 with the 18-135. It is a great kit lens that takes crisp, clean pictures. However, the D300 is lightyears beyond it in terms of low light situations. The D80 is quite noisy in low light. But you're looking at a poorer quality CCD if you go with the 40D.

Your best option is to look what what you need and what they have to offer. Lenses are more important than your body. I'd recommend having her go to a Ritz camera or something of the like and holding them. I was torn between the two and picked Nikon because they feel better in your hands.

Also, here's a site you should check out for technical information:

www.DPReview.com

If she's in a pinch in relation to money, I'd also recommend looking into Pentax. More features for your dollar, and a great line of cameras. Personally, I own Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Olympus. I prefer the Nikon, but my Pentax is always in my kit when I go out.

turtle
2008-05-02, 04:46
I'm more of the Canon persuasion myself. I'd go with the XTi and another lens if it were me.

Yonzie
2008-05-02, 05:54
Nothing major, just a preference. I dislike in particular the way Canon deals with sensor noise...sacrificing color for contrast detail. While this may be true (I have no clue, although I became a Canon guy 15 years ago when my dad's Nikon was unable to focus on moving objects), it is, at this point, not important.
While it is true that the initial purchase often shapes the later choices, at this point it's more about getting a good starter camera than taking sides due to minuscule issues like this (granted, you do ignore your preference ;)).
As an analogy, I'm studying electronics, and looking at Oscilloscopes. While there are many nice models out there, I'm going with a cheap chinese brand. As I learn more about my field, I'll be better equipped to judge what features I want/need the Oscilloscope to have. Once I've graduated, i can then spend the thousands of $ needed to get the one I really want/need (which will be better than what I can get today, due to the rapid advances in technology).

I'm really happy with my 350D. A friend has a D200, and while they're not immediately comparable, his is twice as heavy and unuseable without the manual (only until you learn it, of course) (also, his shutter sounds like it's broken ;))
I'd spend as little as possible on the body and get a good assortment of lenses instead. I don't know what the used market is like, but I'd expect good deals are to be had. The basic jump from a P&S to SLR is pretty huge, and the sensor and processing is the least of her worries. Lenses and practice are key.

Dorian Gray
2008-05-02, 06:39
I too favour Nikon over Canon, but if starting from scratch with $1000, I'd definitely take the Canon 40D over anything else on the market now. The XTi/400D and XSi/450D have good sensors but are just too compromised in build quality for my taste (they feel really cheap even compared to the cheapest SLRs from Nikon, Pentax and Olympus), whereas the 40D has very good build quality. The 40D also has one of the best APS-C sensors ever made, almost as good as the D300's sensor (http://theory.uchicago.edu/%7Eejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/D300_40D_tests/). Yet the D300 costs significantly more. It has more features and an arguably better design, but it's not worth 50% more in my opinion, at least for someone who doesn't use their camera professionally.

Swox
2008-05-02, 13:11
I'm going to second Yonzie - your lenses have a lot more to do with picture quality than your body. As well, your value for what you spend is much better. A lens that is good today, if taken care of properly, will be just as good 5 years from now.

I've got the Canon Rebel XT/350, and while it has some minor issues, I'd recommend it. I'd also highly recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens to go with it - it's an exceptional lens. It's sharp as heck, has a beautiful bokeh, it's fast, and you can get it for just over $400.

Edit: If you have $1000 just for the body, and more money budgeted for the lens, I'd get a semi-pro like the 40D. The feature set, build quality, and so forth will make a big difference when you're using it all day.

ghoti
2008-05-02, 14:58
The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is very good and also very versatile - certainly better in terms of control over stuff like depth of field than any kit lens. Any of the recent DSLRs will work well, and as said above, it makes more sense to invest in good lenses - or save up money to decide later which lens to get.

Eugene
2008-05-02, 16:06
While this may be true (I have no clue, although I became a Canon guy 15 years ago when my dad's Nikon was unable to focus on moving objects), it is, at this point, not important.
At this point Canon's 1D MkIII still can't focus on anything. :p

I'm really happy with my 350D. A friend has a D200, and while they're not immediately comparable, his is twice as heavy and unuseable without the manual (only until you learn it, of course) (also, his shutter sounds like it's broken ;))
Never touched the manual of my D200. I find Nikon controls an ergonomics one of the keys to my preference. I posted a photo of the evolution of Canon vs Nikon bodies over the years that shows what I'm talking about.

http://forums.applenova.com/showpost.php?p=498090

Swox
2008-05-02, 17:51
One more point about that Tamron lens: it comes in a Canon or Nikon mount, so you can get it whichever body you choose!

julesstoop
2008-05-02, 18:46
Just bought a D80 today and very happy with it. The sensor may not be the most modern, but it's simply a great body, with lots of helpful and smart features and you can buy it at a bargain price these days.
Very happy with my 16-85DX-VR Nikkor lenze as well, by the way :)

artesc
2008-05-02, 22:09
thanks a lot everyone. we went today to check out the cameras at best buy. she really liked the d80, but that was the only halfway decent thing there. I still want to go check out the canon 40D the nikon 2300 and of course the 450 xsi. ultimately, because of the price I think she'll probably end up getting the D80 (or hopefully a better revision) or the 450 xsi and a good lens. they have the D80 at costco with an 18-35, and 55-200 "VR" zoom Nikkor lenses and some other stuff thrown in for 1,179. so...she's liking that because of the price. but we yet to really look around.

julesstoop
2008-05-06, 19:09
Succes with your final decision, let us know :)

dennisls111
2008-05-08, 02:32
Get the Canon 40D, it is very good camera.

Eugene
2008-05-08, 03:10
Get the Canon 40D, it is very good camera.
I'd go to a camera shop and try them all. What's important to me (image quality specifics), might not be important to others. Get a good feel for each brand/model ergonomically as well as previewing the menu navigation.

Be sure not to neglect Sony and Pentax.

AWR
2008-05-08, 03:18
I can strongly recommend the Canon 40D.

I have been using one for 4 weeks now (with a Canon 50mm 1.4f lens) and have been completely satisfied. It is a solidly built beast that takes great pictures without a lot of fuss.

I can also recommend the lens w/o hesitation; it is superb in many ways but especially shines indoors in less than great light. Coming from years of relying on decent point and shoots, the 40D has been nothing short of a revelation.

BuonRotto
2008-05-08, 08:27
She has to force herself to use the manual controls everywhere. find the camera that best fits her hand and has the best access to those manual controls for her. She has to try to buy.

Other than that, brand and other features are IMO kind of irrelevant.

Moogs
2008-05-08, 10:32
If she's got existing glass from Nikon or Canon, go with whichever that is. If not I would recommend going with Nikon at your given price-point, though maybe waiting a bit would be smart (haven't read much on the D90 rumors). For me Nikon's #1 benefit is still that they produce better glass in their higher end lenses than Canon. There are of course noise considerations (and the D90 may reap some of the same benefits at high ISO the D300 and D3 have), but ultimately what makes or breaks a camera is the glass. Also Nikon's DSLRs tend to have higher quality construction and ergonomic layouts IMO. I've used the 5D and cameras like that and they're sort of screwy in the way they're laid out compared to the D200, 300, etc. Not knowing what the D90 will look like though it's hard to make that argument with certainty.

That said, the 40D is a very good camera and I'm sure she'd be happy with that too. Once you get past the realm of Rebels and D40s, the differences become more subjective. Both are very good but starting out my advice is usually to go with Nikon, depending on which type of photography they'll be doing, which kinds of lenses they'll be needing.

Eugene
2008-05-08, 15:59
Wait, what? Nikon and Canon's pro lenses are quite comparable, and given the fact that Canon lenses are almost always a couple hundred dollars cheaper, I would favor Canon in the lens department. There's also the fact that the Canon lens library is enormous. Canon still sells 4 different 70-200mm zooms for example.

It's the "low-end" where Nikon users benefit. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 vs the Canon. The Nikkor 18-200mm vs the Canon 28-200mm. Even there Canon has intriguing options like the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5...

I chose Nikon for the bodies, not the glass.

Swox
2008-05-08, 16:05
For me Nikon's #1 benefit is still that they produce better glass in their higher end lenses than Canon.

Careful here, that's dangerous territory. Many would argue the exact opposite.

Moogs
2008-05-08, 17:07
Of course they would, and they all own Canons, and in most cases it's all they've ever owned or used. ;) There are many people though who switched to Canon in years past (before the ISO noise parity revolucion), and switched back because the lenses we're as good for them.

Hopefully we'll get some objective measurements when Phil Askey does detailed lens reviews but I'm talking about the AF-S lenses and primarily the F2.8 zooms of various varieties. Also their primes are extremely good in many cases. 50mm F1.4 etc.

None of this is to say that it's a slam dunk argument. Just what I've found over the years. And none of it is to say you can't produce outstanding results from all of Canon's pro lenses, because of course... you can. :)

Eugene
2008-05-08, 17:18
Of course they would, and they all own Canons, and in most cases it's all they've ever owned or used. ;) There are many people though who switched to Canon in years past (before the ISO noise parity revolucion), and switched back because the lenses we're as good for them.
They switched to Canon in the 80s, before digital and "noise" were a factor. They did so for two reasons, Canon had better FPS with the EOS-1 and 1N and they also had more lenses pros wanted. Again, if I wanted lenses, I would be switching to Canon rather than from. The Nikon advantage is currently in the bodies, and lens parity (for me) is not enough of a factor for me to switch either way.

Hopefully we'll get some objective measurements when Phil Askey does detailed lens reviews but I'm talking about the AF-S lenses and primarily the F2.8 zooms of various varieties. Also their primes are extremely good in many cases. 50mm F1.4 etc.
Well if you read the review of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, it subjectively states that it doesn't pair well with the D3 or potentially other future "FX format" Nikons. Considering this and the 17-55mm are the bread & butter lenses for most PJs, it further enforces the fact that Canon lenses have an edge where it matters.

Of course Nikon has its peculiars too. I'd love to see a technical review of the new 14-24mm f/2.8.

None of this is to say that it's a slam dunk argument. Just what I've found over the years. And none of it is to say you can't produce outstanding results from all of Canon's pro lenses, because of course... you can. :)
*groan*

Swox
2008-05-08, 19:43
Yeah, I've read (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08050201nikon70200review.asp) that the new 70-200mm blows (relatively speaking - it's damn expensive) on the full frame.

I had a hunch that Canon would be better off with their full frames, because they've been making full frame lenses for the whole time that they've been making cameras, whereas Nikon stopped for close to a decade. I'm sure Nikon will catch up, but I really think that Nikon's lens selection is their weak point. As well, the full frame Canon lenses have been out for years in most cases, and are much cheaper.

I'm staying with Canon because of the lens advantage. Canon will catch up with their bodies, and that technology changes all the time. It's going to take a lot longer (I think , anyway) for Nikon to catch up with their lenses.

Just my 2 cents. I don't have anything against Nikon, and I love that they've raised the bar so dramatically with the bodies - we all benefit from that.

Eugene
2008-05-08, 20:04
I'm staying with Canon because of the lens advantage. Canon will catch up with their bodies, and that technology changes all the time. It's going to take a lot longer (I think , anyway) for Nikon to catch up with their lenses.
The Nikon 70-200mm should have been marketed as a DX model...I'm guessing they'll come out with a new version of it fairly soon. That lens, the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 make up the "Three Kings" as people call it.

The Canon lens advantage is very small otherwise, especially when considering the cheaper models or the DX models.

Will Canon ever catch up to Nikon in body design? The EOS-1 body has been in use for 20 years with minimal changes, so I'm not hopeful. As for their approach to image quality, I have always argued against Canon's methods. We can go back to the 40D sample shots that Dorian Gray posted with the cyan/magenta streaks. How can I endorse a camera that can't even measure black or white correctly?