Camera_Gear: DSLRs

Visian said:

i had a ford truck and it was the world's biggest POS ever. my camper is based on an F450... ditto. that said, i see plenty of old fords on the road, so no doubt it is just my dumb luck.

and... i have had nikon since the days of F2AS, and bought the first automatic (shutter speed) FE. i sold the F2AS (big mistake) and kept the FE).

i have some nice nikkor lenses, and i have been holding out, waiting for the day when nikon came out with a full-size image sensor that i could afford.

still waiting...........

so now, i have a dilemma, and i wonder if the assembled experts can help me.

i am looking at two options:

1) Canon EOS XSi (aka 450D)... just announced and available soon.... where i would have to buy new lenses.

2) Nikon D300... where i could use my lenses, even though they don't have autofocus. Cost is higher than the Canon, but I would not have to buy lenses (I think)

both have smaller-than-full-size chips. other than the cutoff (i like wide angle photos) how important of a shortcoming is this? i remember reading/hearing somewhere that the lenses for digital cameras are different than the film cameras... is this true?

both have 3" displays and live view function (important feature to me)

The Canon uses CD cards, the Nikon CF... and i lean toward the SD.

and when did lenses get so *freakin expensive???* (my old nikkor AI lenses are going for, like, $35 on eBay... )

which way should i go?

ian

(ps=> sorry to be a little OT here, but i didn't think this merited its own thread, and this thread looked to be the best place to ask.)

Click to expand...

I must have missed this post earlier. . . .

The F2AS kicked ass--what a camera. Always wanted one, never got one.

Nikon has a full-sized image sensor now. OH, one that you can afford. . . .

The 450D is an excellent camera to consider. You'll have an opportunity to get some really cool lenses, particularly ones with IS.

You can't go wrong with a Nikon D300. Great camera.

I think the two cameras that you are comparing are somewhat dissimilar, though. I think the D300 compares more fairly with the Canon 40D. Now there's a camera. Not better than a 300D, but a decided step above the yet-to-be-released 450D.

Don't fret about lens compatibility. You're going to buy new lenses anyway. I promise. IS (or VR), ultra-sonic motors, autofocusing, coupling with the camera's advanced metering system. . . . With an AI-S lens, you'll be missing a lot more than autofocus. Think about having the flash zoom automatically with your lens, for example. Old lens compatibility is really a non-issue. Sure, it's nice, but you won't use most of them most of the time. Possible exception would be a micro lens.

The APS-C sensor is not a handicap in anyway. Until recently, Nikon said they would never produce a full-size sensor camera. Those who know point to advantages in both APS-C and full-size sensors. The full-size sensor probably has the edge on image quality (definitely at high ISOs) but the APS-C sensors take GREAT pictures. You have to do a bit of math to figure your focal lengths (X1.6 for Canon, X 1.5 for Nikon, I think). Just buy a new wide angle zoom like the 17-55 f/2.8 for canon (28-80mm equivalent).

I can't tell you about digital lenses being different than film lenses. I don't think so. . . . Lenses made specifically for APS-C cameras (Canon EF-S lenses, for example) cannot be used on full-frame or film cameras. All lenses can be used on APS-C cameras. I have six lenses; two are APS-C the other are standard. All are great.

CF cards are thought to be better than SD, not sure why. I use both all the time and can see/tell know difference. Another non-consideration IMHO.

I shot Nikon for years. Still have an FE-2, 24mm 2.8, 35-105, 55 micro, and 80-200 4.0, all AI-S. Never touch them, look at them, or use them. I caprisously switched to Canon on a whim and have never looked back. Both are great systems. If you look at the stats on Dgrin, about 60% own Canon, about 30% own Nikon, and 10% everything else. Pentax and Olympus owners, though fewer in number, seem very happy with their brands, too. Also, if you watch the Flea Market, you regularly see Nikon guys dump their whole system to go to Canon and Canon guys do the same to go to Nikon. A lot of back and forth if you ask me.

I don't think lenses have gotten expensive. I think that the value of the dollar has changed since last you went shopping. I felt very similarly when I started down this road. A lens that cost $300 in 1995 is $450 now. Stuff is more expensive. My grocery store wants $9.00 for a sixer of Samuel Adams. . . .

Go to a nearby retailer (an independent shop if you have one) and handle both cameras. Buy the one the feels best and has, for you, the most comfortable user interface. You'll never look back. Neither of the cameras you're looking at could ever be considered a Ford.

For bike use the Pentax K10D is water & dust resistent and has a metal frame. All Pentax K type lens will work. About lens, forget the ones that come with the kits, spend a few $ more and get good glass, it makes a real differance. Any photo web sites will steer you in the right direction. This is not a point & shoot, but a camera you can go from full auto to full manual. Pentax enginered it to be as close to a 35 as possable. It also has built in image stabazation. It beats the Canon D30 by a mile and a few hundred $.

The Pentax K10D can take great photos of ladys;

Nikon

I settled on a D40 Nikon simply because it would take all my old glass. I had seven Nikkor non-AI lenses collecting dust. The D40 will take them, though of course everything is done manually, but then that's what it was on the old F2 Photomic as well. Very pleased with the camera to the point that I mostly just use the two kit lenses that came with the D40.

Visian said:

i'd rather hear about your camera!

(and pardon my n00bishness if i have started a religious war...)

ian

Click to expand...

I am not sure I understand your point about war. Nevertheless ...

My main camera now is a Nikon D300 with the AF-S Nikkor 18-200mmm DX VR lens. It is the finest DSLR I have ever owned, the latter including the D200 and D70, which I keep around for backup and special uses. It is capable of far more than I am capable of asking of it. Its rear screen is enormous, and its photos are razor sharp. Delve into its 420 page(!) User's Manual to answer any question and learn about any of its hundreds of functions. Or, just set it on "P" and fire away.

If I were wealthy, I would pop for the Nikon D3, with its full-size sensor. But it is bigger and heavier and doesn't have built-in, pop-up flash, which I use a lot. So you need always to carry around a flash unit with the D3. And, frankly, the only reason to have a D3 rather than a D300 is if you are a pro or just want to be the first on the block to have one. The D300's resolution is as much as I need. But I suppose with the D400 with a gazillion megapixels comes out in a couple of years I will be in the market for that!

My "tank bag camera," a Canon "PowerShot" S70 is pretty nice for a P&S. One photo I shot with it became a BMW Owners News cover. But it isn't in the same league with a good DSLR.

bmwdean said:

I am not sure I understand your point about war. Nevertheless ...

My main camera now is a Nikon D300...

...snip

My "tank bag camera," a Canon "PowerShot" S70

Click to expand...

religious war: canon vs. nikon. looks like you've found peace with yourself.

thanks for the info.

tom - up above you comment that i am considering two dissimilar cameras... yes, i know. the canon 450D/XSi i am interested in costs less, but i will have to buy more lenses for that than a nikon D300.

I am hearing that y'all are happy with the performance of cameras that have less than full-size chips. the only hassle with that for me is that i love wide angle shots, and the smaller sensor means a loss of angle.

last, tom... i see you have a 55 micro nikkor... so do i... that lens is fantastic!

ian

Visian said:

tom - up above you comment that i am considering two dissimilar cameras... yes, i know. the canon 450D/XSi i am interested in costs less, but i will have to buy more lenses for that than a nikon D300.

I am hearing that y'all are happy with the performance of cameras that have less than full-size chips. the only hassle with that for me is that i love wide angle shots, and the smaller sensor means a loss of angle.

last, tom... i see you have a 55 micro nikkor... so do i... that lens is fantastic!

ian

Click to expand...

That thought (buying a less expensive camera to help fund lenses) actually crossed my mind, but I dismissed it as I'm convinced that you'll buy the same number of lenses for either camera. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. . . .

The only "loss of wide-angle" you'll experience is in the hope that you'll use existing lenses. Both N and C make very high quality wide-angle zooms. Canon makes a superb 10-22 which is an equivalent to 16-35mm, not too far over $500.

Yes, that Micro Nikkor is a wonderful lens. I just treated myself to a 100mm macro, an F/2.8. It's also a really nice one and I'm enjoying the greater shooting distance. One of the advantages of newer macro lenses is that they focus down to 1:1 without extension tubes.

Keep us apprised of your decision. The only thing I like better than buying a camera is watching someone else do it. Actually, there's quite a few things I like better, but you get my point.

Speaking of lenses....


I'm looking at getting one of these three

Tokina 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AT-X DX AF Fisheye Super Wide-Angle Lens for Nikon Digital SLR

Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye Lens for Nikon SLR Camera

Tokina AT-X 12-24mm AF PRO 4.0 Ultra-Wide Zoom Digital Camera Lens for Nikon AF-D

all about the same price and they seem to have been given good reviews from what I've read and run at least a good $150 less than the least expensive Nikkor that i have seen. I'm kinda stuck ...

The first one has a nice range, would compliment my current 18-50, 90mm, 70-300 set giving me that extra at the bottom edge. It also can focus down to 1" at 10mm which could make for some interesting shots..

The second I like because its the fastest of the three, though it doesn't go down to 10-12, but its faster than my 18-50 which is 3.5-4.5

The last one, though a bit slower stays at 4 thruough out the range of 12-24 which I like though at 24 my 18-50 is at 3.8, but the over lap would give me a bit of latitude in not having to switch quite as often.. Decisions decisions.....


any thoughts??

RM

(oh, and forgot to add.......I've never owned a Ford! )

Visian said:

I am hearing that y'all are happy with the performance of cameras that have less than full-size chips. the only hassle with that for me is that i love wide angle shots, and the smaller sensor means a loss of angle.

ian

Click to expand...

I have a 60mm AF Micro-Nikkor that resides mostly on my D70 for use with macro photos. It is, indeed, a great lens.

If you use Nikon DSLRs other than the D3, they have smaller chips. When I bought my first, the D70, Nikon had only one "DX" lens, an 18-70 zoom, which came in the kit I bought then. Now there are lots of DX lenses designed for the smaller chip, and some are quite inexpensive. I have a 12-24mm DX (not inexpensive) which is very wide angle, and a 10.5mm DX fisheye that is very very wide angle and a lot of fun:

<center><img border=1 width=400 src=http://home.att.net/~jeff.dean/tucson-fisheye.jpg></center>

Check with B&H or any other online photo house to see the assortment of DX lenses and their prices.

I get great photos with the less-than-full-size Nikon chips. Unless you are doing wall-size murals -- for that I would haul out my old, dusty 4x5 view camera -- they are just fine.

Fisheye fun:

rocketman said:

Speaking of lenses....


I'm looking at getting one of these three

Tokina 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AT-X DX AF Fisheye Super Wide-Angle Lens for Nikon Digital SLR

Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye Lens for Nikon SLR Camera

Tokina AT-X 12-24mm AF PRO 4.0 Ultra-Wide Zoom Digital Camera Lens for Nikon AF-D

any thoughts??

Click to expand...

I know nothing about these three lenses.

Solely going by numbers, I'd look at the 10-17, especially as it fits your kit lens so nicely. The 15mm buys you almost nothing but f/ 2.8, the primary benefit of which is the ability to focus in low light, and since you have an AF camera. . . .

I like the fixed aperture of the 12-24, but again, with TTL everything, so what?

If the reviews are all more-or-less equal, I like the 10-17.

This is a uniquely uninformed opinion.

SNC1923 said:

I know nothing about these three lenses.

Solely going by numbers, I'd look at the 10-17, especially as it fits your kit lens so nicely. The 15mm buys you almost nothing but f/ 2.8, the primary benefit of which is the ability to focus in low light, and since you have an AF camera. . . .

I like the fixed aperture of the 12-24, but again, with TTL everything, so what?

If the reviews are all more-or-less equal, I like the 10-17.

This is a uniquely uninformed opinion.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty much my view too....

then again I could get one of those $65 screw-on fisheye things and go for complete distortion! Those things just can't be that great, just the fact it screws on... each time slightly different focal distance... naw....

RM

rocketman said:

This is a thread where I'd to hear about your DSLR camera. Treat this as if you were doing a one or two paragraph review of your DSLR, what you like and what you don't. Don't worry about it being professional, I want to hear what YOU the photographer think. Would you buy another one, if not what would you buy, and why.

RM

Click to expand...

Didn't we have this thread already?
http://forums.bmwmoa.org/showthread.php?t=23135

I use an older Canon D-60.

I have three lenses. I use the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM 99% of the time, since it's perfect for both portraits close to the subject:


and landscapes:


I also have a EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and a EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. The IS can't be praised enough. It simply allows long zoom shots in marginal light or of moving subjects without the use of a tripod - a huge advantage, in my opinion.

I do have a Hakuba carbon fiber tripod w/ Really Right Stuff quick release clamp and mounting plates. I use a Sigma EF 530 DG Super Flash EO-ETTL as my speedlight, and a nifty Pelican case to keep everything but the flash and the tripod safe from water, sand, dirt, etc.

dvandkq said:

Didn't we have this thread already?
http://forums.bmwmoa.org/showthread.php?t=23135

I use an older Canon D-60.

I have three lenses. I use the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM 99% of the time, since it's perfect for both portraits close to the subject:

and landscapes:


I also have a EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and a EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. The IS can't be praised enough. It simply allows long zoom shots in marginal light or of moving subjects without the use of a tripod - a huge advantage, in my opinion.

I do have a Hakuba carbon fiber tripod w/ Really Right Stuff quick release clamp and mounting plates. I use a Sigma EF 530 DG Super Flash EO-ETTL as my speedlight, and a nifty Pelican case to keep everything but the flash and the tripod safe from water, sand, dirt, etc.

Click to expand...

that was more of a poll, I was looking for more information/review of what you had and why so that others looking to buy could get some ideas of what features the average Joe or Joan, end user likes/dislikes.

RM