Digital SLR question..

[thatguy]

I was reading the Cnet.com ratings and the Canon Rebel XT or Nikon D40/D50 seem both got good reviews and both had a few negatives..One of the Canon rebel xt negatives was the lens quality.. My mom has a Sony H2 that looks very similar to the Canon S2 EddieWalker really likes.. I may need to borrow moms and see if that style would be a good compromise between a point and shoot and a SLR..
Im a few months off before I make a purchase, so I got plenty of time for more research. keep the comments coming..

thanks for all the help

brian

 

[RobertN]

The natural progression of a photographer is first to go for features, then quality of the body and finally to focus almost exclusively on the "glass". Nothing sweeter than good glass. Bodies come and go and are virtually always outdated in a couple of years (functional but outdated). Great glass on the other hand can last a lifetime. Devotees may argue about Canon v Nikon but no reasonable person can dispute that both offer superb lenses. Especially check out the higher quality so called "pro" lenses as those are the ones that really make the difference and those are the ones you will be pining for once you get hooked.

I read somewhere that a good idea is to budget for your photo gear by allocating just 1/3 for the body and the rest for good or excellent quality lenses. I'd second that idea. Get a cheaper body if you need to (eg Canon RebelXT instead of a 30D) and never buy the packaged entry level lenses but instead pay a couple hundred or so more for the better quality lens. I know Canon has three levels of lenses and I assume Nikon does too. There are the very cheap package zooms then a better quality level zoom or primes for 200-500 each and finally the L series lenses which start at close to a grand a piece (exotic lenses like the 600mm stabilized lens are really just for pros and I'm not counting those). Five years from now the body and package lens are worth nothing, the better zoom will fetch maybe half of what you paid but the L lenses (or their Nikon equivalent) are quite easily sold for 75% of purchase price. Better yet, you'll probably never want to sell them.

I have mid grade lenses; could not afford the high end, didn't want low end. My 80-200/2.8 is pretty decent, although I have a 24-120 that I really like too. I have borrowed a 20mm/2.8 that I had fun with. All are good glass, and take awesome pictures.

These are all on a 35mm body(Nikon F100). The digital would take a different focal length range of lenses(although mine all work with the Nikon Digital series). I have not bought a digital SLR yet; saving my nickels and dimes...

1/3 on the body, the rest on the lens sound about right.

Glass Glass Glass, check out the glass before the body; put the horse before the cart This is true about SLR's, but also for point/shoots. Heck, it's true on rifle scopes, microscopes...

 

[IslandTractor]

I was reading the Cnet.com ratings and the Canon Rebel XT or Nikon D40/D50 seem both got good reviews and both had a few negatives..One of the Canon rebel xt negatives was the lens quality..

I have not seen that review but I presume the lens they are referring to is the packaged 18-55mm lens. If so then I would agree. The same is probably true of the packaged lens with the Nikon D40. The camera companies know that most people don't look very critically at photos and therefore package the very capable bodies with low rent lenses to compete in the marketplace. That was the point I was trying to make in earlier posts. It is definitely worthwhile upgrading to the middle grade consumer lenses (eg Canon 17-85) if you are going to really benefit from a digitial SLR. If you cannot afford to do that then instead buy one of the very fine non interchangable SLR type cameras (Canon S2, Olympus, Sony etc) which have very nice lenses that are probably better than the entry level interchangable zoom lenses for Canon or Nikon SLRs.

 

[dmccarty]

Not wanting to start a camera brand war....

I won't buy Cannon again. I started with 35mm Cannon system back in the 80s and had some decent lenses. Then the auto focus camera came out and those lenses where useless on the new Cannon bodies. Nikon's new autofocus bodies however would still support the old lenses. No, the lense would not autofocus but they would for the most part work the way they always had worked.

My dad bought a real nice Cannon autofocus body. The camera had a known problem of burning through batteries. When I heard he was having this problem he tried to get Cannon to fix the problem and they would not.

I'm looking at buying the Nikon D200. I have the old F100 which is an awesome camera. But its film. My old lenses will work just fine on the D200. The only thing that apparently wont work is my flash. But at least the decent amount of money I have in the Nikon lenses is not wasted. And I have some really good lenses.

I just don't trust Cannon at all.

My two cents, well its more than that in Camera equipments.

Later,
Dan

 

[IslandTractor]

Not wanting to start a camera brand war....

I won't buy Cannon again.

To each his own. Canon is doing something right however as they have pulled way ahead of Nikon in sales after Nikon had top spot for years in the 35mm market. The change in lens mount design you refer to was indeed controversial but can be considered in the same sense as moving from horse and buggy to an automobile. There was a reason for the change (which happened about 30 years ago by the way) and all lenses in the past 30 years are in fact still useable. The advantage of changing was to introduce the EOS system which shot Canon well ahead of Nikon for years in rapid autofocus (when is the last time you saw anything but long white lens barrels (signature color of professional grade Canon lenses) at a professional sports event...Nikon lenses (every bit as good optically) were for years much slower in autofocus capabilities and Canon cleaned their clocks while Nikon struggled to catch up (they have now caught up). So, your father may have been inconvenienced and not able to move up to the EOS bodies but the decision to change lens mounts was a Nikon killer move by Canon and made them the worlds leading camera company.

All digital camera eat batteries, no brand is particularly better or worse than the others. The entry level cameras for all brands often use AA batteries and the alkaline and NiMH types just don't last anywhere near as long as batteries in a 35mm point and shoot. Better quality cameras have lithium rechargable batteries and are much better matched to digital photography especially if you like to use the LCD a lot. My Canon SLR rechargeable lithium batteries last for over 300 shots which is plenty especially as I can easily carry a spare and it only takes an hour or two to recharge the battery.

Both Canon and Nikon make excellent products and anyone serious about photography should consider both before buying their first SLR. Once you buy into either system you will be in a heap of pain if you change your mind and have to replace lenses and attachments that will eventually cost way more than the initial purchase price of a digital SLR body and first lens. Do your homework and don't rely on glossy ads or what your brother in law tells you.

 

[dmccarty]

Cannon took my money with the lense mount change and force me into buying a new camera system.

Cannon made a camera body that would not use their previous lenses. Nikon did not. Nikon managed to design autofocus around their old lense mounts and save their customers investment in lenses. If I had bought Nikon I would still be able to use some really nice lenses on later camera bodies. Cannon forced me into buying new lenses. I did. Nikon. Fool me once.

My dad had the problem with batteries in A FILM camera body. Shoot a couple rolls of film and you got to put in new batteries. This is not a digital body.

Yes cameras eat batteries. But this paticular body was worse. The Cannon body that my dad bought had a design/manufactuering problem that was fixable. And Cannon would fix it at one time. By the time I realized my Dad was having this problem Cannon would not fix the product.

I just won't spend money with a company that behaves like this towards its Customers. It has nothing to do with which systems is faster focusing, who the "pros" use, etc., but how the company treated me and mine.

Once you buy into either system you will be in a heap of pain if you change your mind and have to replace lenses and attachments that will eventually cost way more than the initial purchase price of a digital SLR body and first lens. Do your homework and don't rely on glossy ads or what your brother in law tells you.

Exactly. Cannon forced me to buy into a new system by THEIR decision. Not mine.

Later,
Dan

 

[IslandTractor]

Each to his own, but at least get the name straight: Canons shoot photographs, Cannons shoot projectiles.

 

[N80]

I'm a huge Nikon fan. In fact, I've moderated at Nikonians :: The Nikon User Community for over 5 years.

Despite being a Nikon fan, I harbor no illusions about the Nikon vs Canon debate. They both make superb gear for all levels. They are both currently engaged in a one-upmanship free for all. If the latest Nikon looks like the best camera in the world, give it a few weeks and Canon will top it. A few weeks later there will be a bigger-better-faster-more body from Nikon. Evaluate the gear on a unit by unit basis. Hold them. Use them. Research them and then buy what you like. You can't go wrong with either brand.

There are differences in the companies though. In _general_ Canon is more innovative, they release new products at a much faster rate than Nikon, they often push the 'stat' game in terms of marketing and design and they are less inclined to maintain compatability across their line.

Nikon in the other hand is slower to release products, is probably less responsive to consumers desire for bigger, better and faster. They tend to place an emphasis on ergonomics. They stick with backwards compatability to an almost bizarre extent. I can (and do) use a 35 year old Nikon lense on my year old D200.

I will not even get into the full frame vs DX sensor size debate. For most people with less than $3000 to spend on a body it is moot anyway.

So you pick what you want. Again, you can't go wrong with either brand.

But, if you want to go Nikon, the D80 is among the best bangs for the buck in the Nikon DSLR line and the 18-70 kit lens is an exception to the kit lense=junk rule. It is not a fast lens but it is optically excellent and very affordable, particularly used from places like www.KEH.com.

As for shutter lag, this is much more a problem in point and shoot digital cameras and even then does not really have that much to do with motion blur in your images. Motion blur comes from slow shutter speeds, either the camera moving or the subject moving. Shutter lag is discussed in regard to DSLRs but it is usually a trivial issue.

Again, don't fret too much over brand, even Sony and Sigma make good digital SLRs. But if you do settle on Nikon, come see me over at Nikonians :: The Nikon User Community .

 

[thatguy]

You didn't say what your needs were for the camera, so I'll just toss out a suggestion. Look at the Cannon S-2. My wife and I have several digital cameras and enjoy taking lots and lots of pictures. They are both 4x optical zoom cameras with that lag time you describe, but otherwise, take good pictures. Hers is a Cannon, Mine is a Kodak. They both fit in a pocket and are very handy and easy to use.

<deleted text>

Hope this helps,
Eddie

Eddie you just made things more confusing.. LOL

But that is a good thing.. I was pretty much leaning toward a SLR, but you got me looking at the Canon S3/Sony H2/Sony H5/Panasonic (??) very seriously.. Each got similar 'good to great' reviews and each one has a weakness the others dont have.. I love the long zoom capabilities of these..

I played with a Nikon D40 SLR with an 18-55 lens AFTER playing with a H5 (12x zoom).. The SLR zoom was a big let down compared to the Sony.. You can quickly get spoiled with a 12x zoom.. LOL

Eddie - Do you find the shutter lag is less with your S2 versus a normal point and shoot camera, or have you even compared them?

Playing with one of the Sony's in the store it had a much less lag than our current P/S camera.. But my mom said her Sony H1 had a terrible lag..

thanks

Brian

 

[duber34]

Is the Canon S2 still being made? I was searching the web last night for a price and found that it was no longer available at several venders. Now, I did see many sites with the Canon S3. The S3 has some very good features.


Regards,
Duber