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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 8, 2008, 1:54 AM   #11
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Photozone is not the only lens review site you know.

You might want to try a few of the others too

The Sony A700 and Nikon D200 are undoubtedly better cameras with more features, the magic of the 5D lies in the images it produces and in that regard ittrounces the other two. (*ducks for cover*)

If things like AF performance and weather sealing are more important to you than image quality then you should defitely go for one of the others. But if that's what really floats your boat then why not go for the D300?

FF is not better as such, it's just different. Shallower DOF (both an advantage and a disadvantage), wider angle of view (both advantage and disadvantage),and bigger pixels meaning less of a strain on the lenses (which IS an advantage).

If 36mm equivalent is wide enough for your "documentary" needs then fine, wouldn't be wide enough for many. Your choice. The 24-70 f2.8 class of lens has been prepared by Zeiss and Nikon primarily in anticipation of their FF offerings. Have you considered the Nikon D300 + 17-55 f2.8 DX combo? If I was set against the Canon I'd look at that carefully - you can get them as a kit from some shops. BH prices $1650 + $1150 = $2800.

Anyway it sounds like you've already ruled out the Canon. But you might want to have a browse on Pbase for the camera and lens combinations you are talking about to see whether you like the images. That's the final test - does the camera and lens combination produce the kind of images you like.





peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2008, 3:44 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11
Default

It's not the only one. But you have doubts you can research on three lenses and you will find that those from Nikon and Sony are better. The price tag is also a proof.

If I choose Nikon D300 and 24-70 then thecost of thesystem will be outside of my budget. Besides, the D300 is only marginally better than the D200 but the price of it is almost 60% highder of that of the D200.

I stated above already, I am choosing a system which is:


within my budget of 3K;

it comes with a quality standard zoom lens;

a good camera.

in this order.
joey_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2008, 4:48 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11
Default

While researching on different cameras and lenses I came to my own conclusion that Canon creates great DSLRs and many lenses with quality ranging from average to good to very good at telephoto range.

Nikon also creates great cameras but a little behind on professional grade cameras than Canon. It makes less number of lenses but their lenses on average are better than those from Canon.

Sony makes good semi-pro camera, a very small number of lenses. But some, the 24-70mm and 85mm are the best on the market.

I don't needmany lenses. I will only need 2-3 good quality lenses and it looks like Sony is offering the best system for me.

My perception about the systems from three vendors is probably wrong and I may be making a mistake with my choice.
joey_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2008, 5:41 AM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

My vote would be for the Sony. But, I'm shooting with a Sony A700 and I really like the camera. So, I'm bit biased. ;-)

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2008, 6:20 AM   #15
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

P.S.

My normal "walk around" lens is a Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF lens on my Sony A700. In most cases, it's wide enough for what I shoot, unless I'm trying to get a larger group of family members in the frame in a smaller room where I may not have room to back up enough. I'd prefer not to lug around a heavier f/2.8 lens unless necessary and I like the 24-85mm focal range better for most things. From time to time, I do consider getting a Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 instead though.

In lower light when I can't use a flash, I'll usually switch to primes (I've got the Minolta 28mm f/2, 50mm f/1.7, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2.8 AF lenses), versus the brighter zooms I have (Tamron SP 20-40mm f/2.7-3.5, Tamron SP 35-105mm f/2.8 ). I like it that they're all stabilized on a Sony body, too.

A 24-70mm f/2.8 would come in handy from time to time though (so, the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 I mentioned looks attractive, since it tests well on a body using an APS-C size sensor).

peripatetic is probably right about the reason you're seeing Sony coming out with high quality lenses like the new Carl Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8. They want the best quality possible for full frame. Personally, I find a 24-70mm on full frame to be a bit limiting on the longer end. On an APS-C size sensor, 70mm would be OK for most shots I'd take But, it depends on what you shoot and the conditions you're shooting in.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2008, 6:57 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

joey_ wrote:
Quote:
...Besides, 85% of my photographs are taken in the range of 20-80mm.
... 20-80mm on what camera? Is that the 35mm equivalent focal length? None of the lenses you've mentioned cover that range. On Sony and Nikon, a 24-70mm lens has a 35mm equivalent focal length of 36-105. Will that do?

BTW, I agree that getting the best lenses possible is a worthwhile goal, and in that regard, I think the Sony is the best choice.

Have you tried any of these cameras yourself, yet? That is also an important factor in selecting a camera, probably as important as any other factor. If you can't comfortably hold the camera (with a big, heavy, large aperture lens attached), if you can't find the controls and commands when you need them, then the best possible image quality isn't going to help when you miss the shot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2008, 6:00 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
deterpawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 393
Default

hey joey
check out the
CANON 40D
CANON 85MM/F1.8 LENS
TAMRON 17 OR 18 - 200TO300MM LENS ( a nice stay on lens )
all have good reviews
this is what i plan to buy in the next month as soon a can get the cash
check out EPINIONS for reviews
also PENTXand OLYMPUS have some sweet cameras with built in stabilisers.
just ideas for you to think 'outside the box' and not be tunnel-visioned by the big names, although the big names do shoot with big guns.
pete

deterpawson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2008, 6:10 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

The Canon 40D is an excellent camera, and the Canon 85/1.8 is an excellent lens. But while the Tamron 18-250 is very good for superzooms, it isn't nearly as good as the other lenses the OP is considering.

Superzoom lenses are 'jacks-of-all-trades-and-masters-of-none'. It does many things adequately but few things well. The Tamron 18-250 is arguably the best of its kind, but it still suffers from significant geometric distortion at the wide end, significant chromatic aberration at the long end, and is soft throughout. It's not a very good lens when compared to combinations of lenses with less ambitious zoom ranges, especially when compared to the particular lenses the OP is considering.
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 7:03 AM.