Digital SLR

A question for the photographers amongst you. I am looking at buying a new digital SLR. I think I'm only really after an entry level camera. It would mainly be for general use, and I would probably use it most for landscapes, sport and other run-of-the-mill things like when visiting cities, etc. Does anyone have any good recommendations for SLR cameras and lenses?

[Website]

Nikon D60.

First off, do you already have a compact digital camera? Just asking because they can actually do a lot of the things SLRs can(there's a small trade-off compromise in photo quality maybe, but at entry level that won't be an issue), are more practical if you're just looking for a camera for general use, and are generally much cheaper. You can still take great photos on them too.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2010 10:03PM by EC83.

@ Zcott: Did you photograph your awesome signature pic with a D60? Haven's seen such a small pic sharper and with such amazing colours before.

---

REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS

I own a Panasonic DMC-FZ7. I'm looking for sharper image quality and RAW. I also often find myself trying to capture a moment but find that by the time a compact has set up for the shot, the moment has passed, as it always takes longer.

[Website]

Make sure it's a Nikon.

---

[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central

If you've got the cash, splash out on a Nikon D700

My girlfriends got one, and it is absolutely incredible!

It's expensive, but the image quality is second to none.

Firstly, what's your budget?

Personally, for an entry level, I'd go for the D90, of Canon 550D.

Also, great advice from EC83, if you learn your camera inside out, you'll be able to take some great shots.

You might also want to consider the G9 or G11, compact camera's but image quality is amazing.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2010 02:54AM by ralv585.

Quote
ralv585
If you've got the cash, splash out on a Nikon D700

Agreed, and whilst you're at it you might as well buy a space shuttle for that commute to work.

The D700 is a pro camera. It's not entry level, it's not mid-range, it's not pro-sumer, it's a pro camera. It's an epic pro camera, and there's nothing stopping you using it if you're a newcomer, but the main advantage to the D700 is how good it is in low light, of which Mr. Fuhrer has indicated no need for, so it would be a monumental waste of £2500+.



A budget would be nice - ideally a budget of how much you want to spend and how much you're willing to spend.

I'm going to talk from a Nikon point of view, as that's what I know. Canon are around the same level and Sony are making strides into being a 3rd viable alternative, but their choice of lenses are still a little limited and/or expensive in comparison to Nikon and Canon.

A D3000 is good enough for many, but if you feel you're going to get into taking shots and feel you'll want something more in the future, you might as well go for a D90 straight away, as you will eventually buy either that or the D300S.

The D3000. It's essentially a D40x/D60 with a new name, so if you can find a D40x for cheap 2nd hand, you might as well consider that. The disadvantage to the D3000 (and D40, D40x, D60 and D5000) is that there is no motor for the autofocus in the camera, which means the lens has to have the autofocus motor in it. That's not very limiting, as most lenses do have the motor now (for example AFS lenses for Nikon and HSM for Sigma lenses both have focus motors) - however it does rule out the fantastic value 50mm f1.8 "Nifty Fifty" unless you're willing to manually focus (Canon also do a Nifty Fifty by the way). The D5000 does have a swivel LCD screen, which may be of use (for me it's just another thing to fail/snap off and I wouldn't use it anyway).

The D90 is excellent in low light (not up there with the D700, but similar to the D300), has the built in motor, more focus points, is quicker, is better built and is bigger than the entry level cameras above. It's not big by any means, more that the above are quite small, and you're more likely to find the D90 better to hold. There is also the D80, which can be had quite cheap 2nd hand (see bottom paragraph). It's not particularly good in low light (but is better than the D40-D5000) and doesn't have video, but it does feature most of the other features of the D90 - bigger, better build, more buttons so you don't have to dive into the menu, is quicker and has the built in motor.

Lenses look to be fairly easy for your uses. Many newcomers want to shoot random shots, portrait and motorsport or wildlife, all of which ideally would use 3 different lenses - a short zoom lens (17-50mm) for your everyday walkabout lens, a midrange prime lens (50mm or 80mm) for portraits and indoor use without flash and a long zoom or prime (70-200mm or even a 300mm prime) for shooting cars or dicky birds.

Your use would be landscape (so maybe a 10-20mm), sport (could be a bit trickier depending on the sport) and random (17-50mm). You should be able to get away with a 17-50mm for the landscape easily enough though.

Either way, I'd sway away from the kit-lenses you get with any camera and get a body only and choose your lenses separately. The kit lenses are OK, and decent value, but most get rid of them pretty quickly.

My choices for a walk-about/landscape lens would be between the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0 and the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8.

The Tamron is pin sharp, fantastic value and very popular. It also features a maximum aperture of f2.8, which is good for 2 things. It allows you to shoot in lower light than if you had a smaller aperture (a higher number) and allows you to blur backgrounds more than if you had a smaller aperture, making the subject stand out more. It all sounds quite complicated, but you'll pick that up quickly. It's not a quiet lens though - when it zooms it is audible, but not massively loud. The slightly older Tamron 17-50 (the non-VC (vibration compensation)) is better than the newer one with VC - the VC is in the product name of the new lens.

The Sigma has the same aperture at 17mm, but it scales up to f4.0 at 70mm (and it scales between f2.8 and f4.0 as you zoom more), which isn't as good as the Tamron, but you do get a little more length to zoom with. It's not as sharp as the Tamron either. You have to decide between zoom flexibility (Sigma) and getting the optically better lens (Tamron). I've got the Sigma, it's a good value lens, and I appreciate the extra zoom, but I have to admit I regret not getting the slightly more expensive Tamron, which I've used a couple of times.

Both of those lenses I'd also get if I had a Canon body.

The choice of longer lenses if you need more length for sport will be determined more by what you're going to be shooting, but a popular budget choice is the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO (make sure it's the APO and not the cheaper non-APO, which is a bit crap). Again, it's quite loud at zooming, and doesn't have a small aperture, but it's a decent lens and better than the Nikon budget 50-200mm. The Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 is a sharp lens and well built, but quite expensive. Personally I use a Sigma 150mm f2.8 prime lens - it's not especially long (but then I tend to take my motorsport photos at Knockhill, where you're almost on top of the cars) and it's also a true macros lens. It also happens to be one of the best lenses out there, but then it is expensive. The Sigma 70-300mm isn't a true macro lens - it will allow you to focus close to a subject, but you'll only get 1:2 magnification, so if you take a macro shot at 300mm the output will actually be more like 150mm.




If you've got a mate who has Nikon or Canon with a selection of lenses, I'd consider going for the same brand, as you may be able to steal his lenses every now and then rather than hiring or buying your own.

Either way, what I'd personally do is head down to a Jessops or other camera shop and handle both Nikon and Canon and see which feels more comfortable in your hand - just don't buy from them straight away as they're probably not the cheapest. Keep in mind that once you've got your first camera, you either have to stick to that brand or sell it all and switch, as you can't interchange lenses between different brands (for example a Nikon-fit Sigma lens won't fit on a Canon camera, even though Sigma makes lenses with both Nikon and Canon mounts).

When you do get a camera, I'd personally buy either one of the 17-50mm or 17-70mm lenses I mentioned above and stick with that originally, as it might be all you need. If you find you need more length, then you can get a 2nd lens. If you're not sure which other lenses you need buy the 17-50 or 17-70 and then hire a couple of other lenses. I can personally vouch for Lenses for Hire and they don't charge a deposit - only the hire cost. It's also useful if you're going to an event and only need a lens for that week, so it might not be worth buying a lens outright.

One more thing. 2nd hand is normally fine for camera gear. People think cameras and lenses are so delicate that they treat them with silly amounts of care and the majority of the time with 2nd hand the worst you'll find is a few scuffs on the shell of the lens, while the internals and lens themselves are in perfect shape. If you can make a decent saving and trust the seller, it's worth going 2nd hand.

gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > If you've got the cash, splash out on a Nikon
> D700
>
>
> Agreed, and whilst you're at it you might as well
> buy a space shuttle for that commute to work.
>
> The D700 is a pro camera. It's not entry level,
> it's not mid-range, it's not pro-sumer, it's a pro
> camera. It's an epic pro camera, and there's
> nothing stopping you using it if you're a
> newcomer, but the main advantage to the D700 is
> how good it is in low light, of which Mr. Fuhrer
> has indicated no need for, so it would be a
> monumental waste of £2500+.
>
>
>
> A budget would be nice - ideally a budget of how
> much you want to spend and how much you're willing
> to spend.
>
> I'm going to talk from a Nikon point of view, as
> that's what I know. Canon are around the same
> level and Sony... and the rest of gav's infinite knowledge follows

Bugger Wikipedia, we've got gav



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2010 01:04PM by Ho3n3r.

Wikipedia is (in theory) fact. I'm opinion.

And you didn't have to quote the entire post!

gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wikipedia is (in theory) fact. I'm opinion.

Most of the time Wikipedia is opinion as well

gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you didn't have to quote the entire post!

There we go, that better?

gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The D700 is a pro camera. It's not entry level,
> it's not mid-range, it's not pro-sumer, it's a pro
> camera. It's an epic pro camera, and there's
> nothing stopping you using it if you're a
> newcomer, but the main advantage to the D700 is
> how good it is in low light, of which Mr. Fuhrer
> has indicated no need for, so it would be a
> monumental waste of £2500+.

I felt like a god walking around with over £5000 worth of equipment over my shoulder last week

Yeah, but no God has ever taken a good photo.

As you demonstrated in the random photo thread, 9 times out of 10 you'll be able to take as good a photo with a good compact or bridge camera, or indeed an entry-level dSLR, as you would with a D700. The real skill is knowing when such a camera will make the difference.

As much as I yearn for a D700 or D3 (particularly the D3x), I can't justify one. The only time I take photos in low light I tend to have flash assistance, be it either hot-shoe flashes (I've got 2 SB600s and an SB800 so I can have 3 way wireless lighting) or studio lighting (I've got a full 4-light Lencarta studio lighting setup to play with at work), so a camera such as a D700 would give me nothing over my D300 at present.

I will go full frame at some point, I'm just waiting until it becomes a necessity. It would offer me nothing in the foreseeable future.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2010 11:06PM by gav.

How is the D300 holding up for you?

I don't think i'll be able to afford the D700, but i might be able to push for a D300 or D300S, but i'd settle for a D90 and some good glass.

In my pics i used my old cybershot, and my current Canon Powershot SX1 IS, and the image quality difference between that and the D700 were night and day.

If it makes you feel any better, my gf's dad has a D3S or X not sure, a family of photographers, and you can bet all their lenses are gold rimmed

The D300 has been faultless. It's basically the same camera as the D700, except it's got a crop sensor (which as I've said isn't quite as good in low light). Other than that, I think the only difference that I'm aware of is the viewfinder eyepiece (the D700 is circular, the D300 is more of a rectangle). If there's anything specific about the D300 you want, just ask.

You can steal all the full-frame glass from your girlfriend's dad too - it can all be used on any current Nikon, though it will crop it to appear closer than it would on the D700/D3/D3s/D3x. In terms of length a 17-50mm lens on a crop camera is roughly the equivalent of the 24-70mm that he undoubtedly has*, so the 24-70 on a crop camera would probably be something like a 35-90mm.

* and a beauty of a lens the Nikon 24-70mm is too as are all the lenses in the 'holy trinity' - the 14-24mm, 24-70 and 70-200.

Been hanging around and just reading recently - so hope no one minds my opinion, even though i havent posted a lot here in the last few years :-P

I think Gav hits the nail on the head - however, Id also say that it is important to develop and learn to use a camera like an SLR, i.e how it will react, what effect changing certain parameters will have on others and your photo etc, in what situation you need what type of lens etc. Therefore in that sense I don't feel you should buy a complete selection of lenses straight off, its imporatnt to learn what you are dealing with first as most people who move from point and shoot start out with a Point and Shoot mentality and hence having a broad range of lenses, especially the primes at this stage is not worth it. There is no point buying something when you dont know whether you will grow into it, so to speak (I think gav made that point later on so i hope i'm not just repeating him :p)

I'd personally buy an SLR, with a medium zoom kit lens, learn to use the thing and as you develop your photography and find some direction in how and what you want to shoot you can then invest in more expensive and taylored glass, like primes and macros/fisheyes etc. Personally i started out with the 20d, the 17-55 kit lens and the 70-300 F4-5.6 III. That for me was an ideal starter kit. I must admit i did sell the 70-300 (to LS, LS - did you keep that for long?) about 6 months in as Canon had a good cashback offer on the 70-200 F4, which is a fantastic lens, great value for money and ideal if you want a more proffesional type glass for good value. I needed that at the time for my motorsport stuff and its served me so well ever since. Bullett proof lens, I even dropped it out my pocket onto tarmac at brands hatch a few years ago and it still works like clockwork - as gav says, these things are built to last, at least at the metal/pro end of the market anyway). Anyhow - the point is, the 70-300 was £150 and got me started. If you arent buying for something specfic like I was, for motorsport, then its where you want to start.

Anyway, the main point i wanted to make is that if you wish to develop your photography in a more creative direction i would not recomend an expensive compact. About a month ago i bought myself a Canon SX20is - mainly for around town and at gigs or places i cant take my slr, a general all purpose support camera, and I was really surprised and impressed with its quality generally, especially its colour, reaction time, ease of use, manual functionality (in compact context) and user friendliness - but under testing conditions it still can't hold a candle to my now nearly 6 year old EOS 20D. Its quick and responsive but not suitable for sports, tennis in this case (and no compact with a digital display ever will be) due to the lens close blackout, speed of focus, screen lag, apature range and ISO noise at the higher sensitivities. I can't wait to get my hands on a newer generation EOS when time permits me to get into my photography again because i'm sure all the ergonomic and interface improvements I saw in the SX20 will be in the newer lines of SLRs.

I might post some tennis comparison shots if i get time tomorrow as i used both my SLR and my SX20 but didnt stick to the SX20 for too long as it didnt give me the control i required, tennis is a different prospect from motorsport and you need a quick finger, a camera that reacts fast and the ability to track something that changes direction qucikly and unexpectedly (a person) but the compact just couldnt do this sufficiently because the display lagged, the focus was slowish and you could only take one shot at a time (bursts required to time ball on raquet when at most angles) because of the shutter blackout.

phew, 00.44 so time for bed, hope it makes sense, pretty tired..!

------------------------------------

24 Heures Du Mans 18-19 June 2005

On a similar theme to the thread - i currently have a Canon Ixus 860IS, and am (sometimes) happy with it, but it is horrendous in low light (my phone does a better job, strangely!), and also has no depth of field (again, my phone can occasionally do better :S).

Question is: Is a Nikon D3000 a worthy upgrade as an entry level SLR? I'm going to a couple of motorsports things this year, and hopefully japan next year, and i'm hoping to have a decent camera for these (my canon is definitely not the best at motorsports!). I like night and low light shooting, but have seen variable results on the internet for this camera...

_______________________________________________________

Team Japan Owner - GPGNC

The D3000 will be a lot better in low light than the majority of compacts, but the same limit limitations apply that would apply to most compact, bridge or phone cameras - the budget end of the market is always a long way behind the higher end.

Compared to my D300 the D3000 (and most cheaper DSLRs) is crap, but then my D300 is relatively crap when compared to a D700 or a D3. Compared to your compact it will presumably be a lot better. With a DSLR you also have the advantage of being able to strap on a hotshoe flash and bounce it off of the ceiling or walls too if you must, whereas with most compacts and bridge cameras you're stuck with that pop-up flash which will point forward all the time (you also get pop-up flashes on most DSLRs, but they only tend to get used to triggering other flashes wirelessly or as a fill light in bright sunlight - they're no better than the flashes on the compacts if you intend to use them as they are).

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm in no rush, so I will take my time. I will take a look at the D90. Thanks also for the advice on getting a body only - hadn't thought about that.

[Website]