Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 18, 2008, 11:32 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 21
Default

Hi, i've been using Canon G series from G5,G6, and now G7
anyway i'm just normal photographer, and not pro or anything, i shots night landscpae , and potrait which are taken normally in dim lighting or night time, and i really doesnt like to use any flash on my photos.
few days ago after toying with my friends Nikon D40x , i'm started to fall in love with DSLR cause it's small size and ease of use however being a long time Canon user, i'm leaning more towards canon than nikon,

i've been searching a little bit and comes up with few DSLR in mind :

-Canon 400D
-Canon 40D
-Canon 450D
-Nikon D40x
-Nikon D80
-Nikon D300
-Olymus E 510

What i'm looking for is small , light , and compact DSLR, with of course good quality images, ease of use, and also lots of compatible lenses and accecories.

there are few question though:

1)
my friends says that i shouldnt buy the canon 400D/450D cause it can't use ISO 3200
(is that really important ? cause from my experience, above ISO 800 all the images is turns to be very noisy anyway)

2)my friends also says that 400D/450D have 1.5x lense multiplier, i don;t know how to explain, but is like when u are using 35mm lense on those camera, it become 50+mm or something like that instead of being 35MM, is that true ? and is that important for me to take into my DSLR consideration ?

please reccomend me a good DSLR plus the Lense combination, i would really like having only 1 lense that can shoot wide enough and bright enough in night indoor setting without using any flash, i don't really care about tele zoom, but having a little bit of zoom also coul be great, and i also want to be easilly to make the background of my object blurred. anyway im looking in about $1500~$2000 region (body and lense)

can anybody give me a recommendation ? cause i'm very newbie in this. and i don't want to take a wrong step on buying my first DSLR.
thank you very much.

10-Dee-Q is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 19, 2008, 5:23 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

All of the DSLR you mention will get the job done, and done well. Canon and Nikon will have the most lenses readily available. You mention your level as being a newbie..you're looking at camera's from entry level to semi-pro. Spending the extra money on a D300 or 40d is probably overkill unless you need the added durability. They are heavier and have a feature set that will likely make learning more difficult.

Iso 3200 is a nice feature to have, and you can often get usable prints from today's DSLR's that can shoot at this ISO. It's great for indoor sports, concert photography, etc. If you shoot mostly outdoors in bright light, then it's not so important.

All of the DSLR's you mention have a crop factor. Nikon and Canon are 1.5x (approx). What this means is your field of view appears larger as the sensor size is smaller than 35 mm, in effect making your focal length longer. That is a 50mm lens will appear to be a 75mm lens when mounted on one of these cameras. The olympus has a factor of 2x.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 6:12 AM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

That's a pretty wide range of cameras you're considering (from entry level to advanced amateur/semi-pro).

You may also want to consider the Sony models: DSLR-A100, DSLR-A200, DSLR-A300, DSLR-A350, DSLR-A700

These can use any Minolta Autofocus lens ever made, and they'd all be stabilized (thanks to the in body stabilization system).

As for being able to shoot indoor photos at night without a flash, that's more difficult.

I'd suggest using a prime (fixed focal length versus zoom) lens if you can't (or don't want to) use a flash. You'll need the brightest lens you can get your hands on in some indoor lighting, even shooting at higher ISO speeds (unless you're shooting stationary subjects), and a zoom lens may not be bright enough.

Otherwise, you're going to get some motion blur unless your subjects are very still.
Even with a bright prime, existing light shooting can be tough in typical home lighting at night. I'd look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 if you want something a bit wider in a bright prime (you may find that a 50mm is a bit limiting, since you can only back up so far in close quarters). This Sigma available in popular camera mounts for around $429

If you've got room to use one, most camera manufacturers offer bright 50mm lenses, too (you'll want f2 or wider apertures, represented by smaller f/stop numbers).

I'd suggest considering an external flash for added versatility in low light conditions (so you can bounce the flash for more even lighting, without the need to shoot with the aperture wide open, which is going to limit depth of field).

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 2:00 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

All the cameras you mentioned will do what you want. The Canon and Nikon have the largest selection of lenses and accessories. For the Olympus, the selection is a lot smaller and much more expensive.

Nikon dLSRs have a 1.5 crop factor, which means a 35mm film exposure is 1.5 times as large as the image sensor in the camera. Canon dSLRs have a slightly smaller image sensor, which gives thema 1.6 crop factor. This 'crop factor' is really only a crutch for people that started out using 35mm film cameras. If you're not familiar with the effects certain focal length lenses have on the angle of view, it doesn't mean anything to you.

For the kind of photopgraphy you want to do, you'll need some fast lenses (lenses with large maximum apertures.) Those lenses are a lot less expensive for Canon and Nikon than for other brands of dSLRs, so I think Canon and Nikon are good choices. Pentax also has some fast wide angle lenses appropriate for low light photography, and the Pentax's have sensor shift image stabilization in the camera body (something the Canon and Nikon bodies don't.) Sony and Olympus have a smaller selection of fast lenses, and they can be very expensive.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 2:51 PM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
Sony and Olympus have a smaller selection of fast lenses, and they can be very expensive.
I'm going to disagree with that.

As you already know, the used market is full of Minolta 50mm f/1.7 Autofocus Lenses for under $100. Reputable vendors like http://www.keh.com have great stocks of used Minolta AF lenses (and Minolta manufactured some 16 Million Autofocus Lenses beginning in 1985).

I got a Maxxum 7000 body with a 50mm f/1.7 AF Lens and a Minolta 1800AF flash, with cases and manuals for a "buy it now" price of only $49 for the entire package on Ebay while back.

You can buy a very high quality Sony 50mm f/1.4G AF Lens if you want something brighter for around $325. Or, go with a used Minolta 50mm f/1.4 AF lens for less.

In a high quality wider focal length prime, you can get a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DG AF Lens in any of the popular camera mounts for $429, brand new.

IMO, based on tests and images I've seen, you're not going to do any better for typical indoor existing light photos compared to than this Sigma lens on a model with an APS-C sensor, as compared to another manufacturer's 28mm or 35mm primes at equivalent apertures.

It's only a fraction of the cost of the camera manufacturers 35mm f/1.4 AF lenses, too.

I'm using a Minolta 28mm f/2 Autofocus Lens right now on the wider end for for a lot of existing light shooting indoors (terrific lens. bought for $299 from cameta auctions a while back). But, I've been thinking about getting a Sigma 30mm f/1/4 from time to time, too. That way, I'd have f/1.4 (twice as bright as f/2) if I needed it.

For indoor photos in a typical home at night without a flash (which is my understanding of what the OP wants to do), I just don't see how you'd do any better in Nikon, Canon, Pentax, or Sony mount compared to this Sigma on a camera with an APS-C sensor. You'd also have the advantage of stabilization in Pentax and Sony models with that feature if you wanted to shoot stationary subjects at lower ISO speeds without a tripod or flash. You can't buy lenses that bright with stablization in Nikon or Canon mount.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 4:46 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
TCav wrote:
Quote:
Sony and Olympus have a smaller selection of fast lenses, and they can be very expensive.
I'm going to disagree with that.

As you already know, the used market is full of Minolta 50mm f/1.7 Autofocus Lenses for under $100. Reputable vendors like http://www.keh.com have great stocks of used Minolta AF lenses (and Minolta manufacturerd some 16 Million Autofocus Lenses beginning in 1985).
KEH.com has used Minolta50/1.7 lensesstarting at $84 (excellent condition or better), and used Minolta50/1.4 lenses starting at $265. eBay has the 50/1.7going for similar prices and the 50/1.4 going for slightly more.

Adorama has new Canon 50/1.8 lenses for $85, and new Canon 50/1.4 lenses for $300. These prices are certainly competitive with the prices for used Minolta lenses, but compare them with B&H's price of $325 for a new Sony 50/1.4.

KEH.com has used Minolta28/2.8 lensesstarting at $89 (excellent condition or better), 24/2.8 lenses starting at $144, and 20/2.8 lenses starting at $299. I haven't been watching these on eBay, but I have been watching some others. The last 8 used Minolta 35/2.0 lenses have gone for an average of $500, and the last 8 used Minolta 28/2.0 lenses have gone for an average of $390.

Adorama has Canon's 28/2.8 for $170 new, Canon's 24/2.8 is $290 new, andCanon's 20/2.8 for $420 new, but they also havenew Canon 35/2.0 for $230, and new Canon 28/1.8 is $400.

The used Minolta lenses with maximum apertures of f/2.8 are less expensive than new counterparts from Canon, but the faster lenses from Canon are less expensive than the counterparts from Minolta.

And remember that I'm comparing the prices for used Minolta lenses and new Canon lenses, and sometimes the Canon lenses look pretty good. What this doesn't show is the cost of used Canon lenses, which are lower still.

JimC wrote:
Quote:
I got a Maxxum 7000 body with a 50mm f/1.7 AF Lens and a Minolta 1800AF flash, with cases and manuals for a "buy it now" price of only $49 for the entire package on Ebay while back.
Yes, I'm not denying that there are some bargains available on eBay, but I suggest that there are some bargainsforCanon lenses too.

JimC wrote:
Quote:
You can buy a very high quality Sony 50mm f/1.4G AF Lens if you want something brighter for around $325. Or, go with a used Minolta 50mm f/1.4 AF lens for less.
... not a lot less!

JimC wrote:
Quote:
You'd also have the advantage of stabilization in Pentax and Sony models with that feature if you wanted to shoot stationary subjects at lower ISO speeds without a tripod or flash. You can't buy lenses that bright with stablization in Nikon or Canon mount.
But you can with Pentax, and for less. I mentioned stabilization elsewhere in my original post, in conjunction with the Pentax, which has less expensive, fast standard and wide angle lenses. The Pentax 50/1.4 goes for $175 and the 35/2.0 goes for $300, and they would be mounted on a stabilized camera.

For what the OP wants to do, if he or she wants to stick with Canon,that would not be a bad choice, and if he or she wants a stabilized camera, a Pentax would be less expensive than a Sony.

Edit: Another Minolta 35mm f/2.0 lens just sold on eBay for $699(!) rasing the average by quite a bit. I've noticed that the prices people are paying for used Minolta lenses has gone up recently. I don't know if this is a random fluctuation ora cyclical thing, but I think it might also be a result of Sony's introduction of 3 new dSLRs. Maybe used Minolta lenses are getting more valuable because of Sony's bold marketing tactics.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 4:56 PM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

So, what you're telling me is that most if these brighter lenses are within around $100 or $200 of each other between the major manufacturers, right?

And, if you go with a better suited lens for low light photos in dim light like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DG AF lens I suggested in my first post, there is no difference in price between camera mounts.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2008, 6:58 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
So, what you're telling me is that most if these brighter lenses are within around $100 or $200 of each other between the major manufacturers, right?
For faster wide angle lenses, Canon's lenses are either less expensive or faster for the same price, but yeah, albeit on a non-stabilized body. But on a Pentax, with a stabilized body, the faster wide angle lenses are a lot cheaper.

You know I'm an available light photographer, but I like longer fast lenses, so I'm happy with my KM5D and whichever Sony I end up getting next.

But for shorter fast lenses on a stabilized body, I think Pentax is the better choice. And I think that's what the OP is looking for.

JimC wrote:
Quote:
And, if you go with a better suited lens for low light photos in dim light like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DG AF lens I suggested in my first post, there is no difference in price between camera mounts.
Yes. The OP can take advantage of the Sigma 30/1.4, but he or she can also get a 35/2.0 for less, or a 50/1.4 for a lot less.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2008, 2:57 AM   #9
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

One nice thing about Pentax is that you can get the new Zeiss MF SLR lenses in K-mount. Not terribly cheap, but wonderful and image stabilized with the body! Might be worth a look for the OP's stated interests.

Curiously enough the deal with Sony might mean that these lenses will never be available for the Sony/Minolta mount without an adapter. Though of course with the Sony you will get AF versions in the fullness of time, no doubt at a higher cost.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2008, 8:12 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
...in the fullness of time, ...
That's like 'RSN', right?
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:40 AM.