Which Camera?

Octopus

Octopus

Active member
Ok so right now i'm using my dad's Nikon d50 and soon I want to buy a new body and a new lens. I'm looking for something thats a step or two up from the d50 but not 1700 dollars. Is it hard to make a switch from one brand to another?so far my options are,Nikon D90Canon 50DSigma SD15 (predeccesor to the sd14)
Any other recommendations?Which one should I get?Also, I do a little bit of everything photography wise, so I'm looking into some Super Wide Macro ZOom lenses (which are made, believe it or not)Thanks again,K.R.
 
I haven't shot with the D90 but I do have the 50D and it's a really nice body. Super crisp pictures.I think the D90 might be a little cheaper, but it's really up to you.I'm sure both bodies will work fine with some nice glass.
 
go for the d90. it's a grat body, i have one along with a d60. love them both. also the HD might interest you and if so get the d90, the pictures are amazing.
 
1Dmkiii haha but seriously go Canon. Yes Nikon bodies have a better build, but the optical quality of Canon can't be touched. Ever see a professional ski photographer with a Nikon? No... Dan brown, Blotto, etc.. all use it
 
if you go canon go with either the 40d or the 5d, i don't really see a point in getting a 50d, since it wasn't one of the major upgrades it's just not worth the extra cash
40d is a fantastic camera, i couldn't be happier with mine
 
Agreeed.If you were looking for a video camera than by a video camera. The HD video on the D90 is cool but really shouldn't be the reason to buy that camera.
 
as for super wide macro lenses, they're only called macro because they can focus close enough to be considered macro but they really don't get close enough to do interesting shots. my experience with the wide macro lenses is that they're not very useful in any category
if you go canon, i recommend as a cheap starter setup a tamron 17-50, a canon 50mm 1.8, and kenko extension tubes if you're interested in macro. the sigma 10-20 is also a great cheaper wide anglein my flickr below the closeup bug shots are taken with the 50 1.8 and extension tubes
 
ok thanks guys so it seems like I should be going canon.the 40d is discontinued so I think i'll just go with the 50d.Now i'm only worried about making the switch from nikon to canon and the lens.Now I think i found a pretty good everything lens but i'm not sure if the focus is enough for good macro shots.
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Autofocus Lens for Select Digital SLR CamerasMinimum Focus Distance1.48' (0.45 m[/i])
Is that enough?

This lens is 600 . If its not enough minimum focus distance could you recommend me some other lenses?Thanks,
 
well i mean if you really wanna get in there and do macro you need to basically put your lens on the object, if you want macro something like an 18-300 isn't gonna workthat lens will have range but not be very sharp overall and not focus close enough to do interesting macro work
i highly recommend buying a 40d (you can still get them) and using the extra cash to buy good lenses, no matter how good the body is, if you put a shitty lens on it, the picture will only be as good as the lens can be. glass is 10x more important than body
i recommend as a starter setup:canon 70-200 f/4 L non-IS $500 give or takecanon 50mm f/1.8 II $90tamron 17-50 f/2.8 $350kenko macro extension tubes $100
if you cheap out on glass you will end up buying new stuff later on and regretting the original purchase, we've all done it. you need a solid lens quiver if you want to get the most out of your camera and want to get the best pictures you can, it's just like skis, there's no ski that does everything perfectly, if you want true performance in all categories, you have to have several pairs
 
Ok thanks a lot man.Legit post.Are there any major differences between 40d and 50d?also, do those lenses have aoutofocues?
 
well aside from bells and whistles, not really, hence why i recommend the 40d. the 50d has a higher mp count which is good for some people but bad for others, some think it creates more noise. i basically don't think it's necessary to have slightly more megapixels when you're paying more for the camera
all those lenses i listed are autofocus, canon is different from nikon in the sense that most lenses are af and mf, you don't have to worry about that
 
do you know of any online store that sells it?because i might not be purchasing for a while so it might not be available then
 
ok thanks.this all adds up to 2200.is that to much to spend for your first camera and lenses?even though its not the first camera ive used, right now im using my dads.I dint think money will be a problem as my bar mitzvah is coming up soon. But i dont want to be spoiled and buy all this and only use some of it
 
well you don't need to buy exactly what i listed, just think about what you need your lenses to doyou expressed interest in macro so the 50mm with extension tubes kills 2 birds with 1 stone. the 50 is a fantastic portrait lens, coupled with toobz it's macro
the tammy was my first zoom lens, it's super sharp for walkaround and it goes pretty wide at 17
with canon, L glass is by far the best, so the 70-200 is sharp and great for shooting sports of any kind or anything long range
i then upgraded to a 24-105 f/4 L and a sigma 10-20, you'll definitely upgrade at some point in time but that's a good starter setup
 
the aperture goes much lower, it's very sharp, and the 17-50 won't be very good for macro, and prime lenses are the best
 
Oh boy, time to start another hate thread!

First things first, you've used the d50, did you not like it? Why was it so limiting, have you read the manuals and learned what everything the camera can do? (not saying its an intricate camera, but have you taken the time to learn all the smaller feautures or just the basic ones.

Secondly, why are you considering spending $2200 on a camera you've never used, with a brand you've never used (assumed) and using glass you've never tested? I don't know a whole lot about Canon but I feel as if the 40d may be excessive in your needs. ( For a few reasons in which I will politely as possibly state: You asked if those lenses had AF, You've never had a camera before, just used your dads, In your cameras you were previously looking at you included a Sigma Camera.. who here even knew they made cameras? I sure as hell didnt.)

My suggestions, would for you to scratch the 40d, and to look into the Rebel Line. It will be cheaper (as you wished) and will be plenty enough of a camera for you. I think that the Rebel XSi/XTi is what people enjoyed and found sufficient enough, I think some were troubled with the T1i?

As far as glass, I would also recommend the Tamron 17-50. I have the lens and have no issues with it at all, the AF seems slow at times, but I usually blame that on a new battery as switching them out usually makes the AF more responsive. I might also back the 50mm 1.8 as I have Nikons version of the lens. Im not sure on the tubes though, as I have never used them. I almost wouldn't buy a 70-200 now. Once you figure out the camera in its entirety, and feel limited by a 50mm then look into the option. But I can honestly say a 70-200 is my least used lens. They feel too limiting to me, but Im a sucker for wideeee.

Hope that helps, and consider this.. are those macro shots worth the $2000+ price tag?
 
the canon xsi is a banger entry level dslr, if i were starting over again the xsi is for sure the one i'd pick to start shooting with
 
Thanks for the recommendation!
ok so I like the d50, but there are a few things. 1. The FPS on the d50 and on the canon rebel is slow. I cant get the skiing shots that i would like or any sequence shots. canon 50d does 6.3 FPS, double th rebels speed2. More megapixels on the 50d vs the rebel.3. Bigger ISO range on the 50dthe list goes on.
I'm not neccasarily saying that the canon 50d is the right camera for me, I just dont think the rebel xsi has what I want.Why dont people like the Ti rebel?
Ok, now about the Autofocus. I occasionaly use autofocus as a starting point, and then go from there manually, but Whether or not i'm using it, I always like that option.
As for lens, I honestly dont know, I'm gonna ask for some more opinions on a photography forum too.
So thanks A lot guys!
K.R.
 
I wouldn't base camera buying on FPS. I did that and regretted it a couple months later. Sequences get so old so quickly, especially if you have to sift through 20 frames of one trick.

If you really want sequences, I'll sell you my D2H.
 
1) Eh, sequences aren't all they are cracked up to be, Ill admit they were slow on my old Rebel Xt, it was 3 fps I think, not sure on the new ones though..

2) More megapixels doesnt mean shit. Unless you plan on printing poster sizes prints, anything over 6mp is fine.

3) Higher ISO's also doesnt mean very much, when you get into the higher ISO's your just going to get more grain which is never pretty. Plus I thought you wanted to shoot skiing shots? ISO 100/200 is all you need for that.
 
Nothing? Just an older model, so you would have to buy it used (not sure how you feel about that?) I had the camera for awhile and never had a problem with it.
 
a rebel will be great as an entry level dslr but i guarantee in no time you'll upgrade to a pro canon camera if you go the rebel path, this is just skipping a step if you know how to use a dslr very well
also with the lenses, that wasn't saying you should get them all at once, take your time, get one at a time, but i agree with despite, get the 70-200 last if you feel like you need it
it's a great lens but some don't really feel the need to have a lens in that range
 
Im sorry, but this is the worst advice I have ever heard about wide angle lenses. Sure, there not good for traditional macro photography, but to say that they are not useful in any category.... that is so not true. I interned at a newspaper this summer as a photographer and at least 75% of staff shots are wide angle. If they can get up that close to something, they will. 80-200 are only put on at events where they cant get as close to the action. Wide angle allows you to get really close to a subject but still show the environment.
If you go with cannon, I would not go with the rebel. I got a d40 as my first camera (the nikon equal of the rebel) and quickly found that I needed something more (but i did take photo for 3 years in HS). If you have experience, i would opt for a better body. just dont skimp on the glass.

 
http://dpreview.com/

Best site for DSLR info. Good reviews, excellent forums. It's easy to jump on a bandwagon and bash one brand or the other, but the honest truth is that whether you go Nikon or Canon you will be fine. They each have their downsides and each have their upsides. I shoot Nikon now but have used Canons in the past. From my experience, intro Canon bodies and lenses leave a little to be desired but their pro line of bodies and lenses are superb. While Nikon intro bodies and lenses tend to perform at almost pro levels and their pro lineup can be a little sparse, especially regarding FX. That being said I would recommend sticking with nikon for the simple reason that you are familiar with their ergonomics and menu system and you can share lenses with your dad. You may even be able to convince him to buy some expensive glass for you if you promise to share. :) If you are gonna head over to Canon, make sure you test drive one out before buying. I know a lot of shops will rent out bodies for like $15/day on the lower end bodies.

Good luck with your decision and be sure to check Dpreview out. Will answer any question you have.
 
ok Thanks a lot evverybody, now i think I just need to choose some glass.It seems like p\the best way to choose glass is to rent it.Do you guys think its worth the extra dough?
 
my wide angle is my favorite lens by far, i'm talking about those lenses that are like 18-50 macro, they don't do much for anything if you're looking for a macro lens because they're too wide to get macro shots and they don't focus close enough to get deep inside the subject
my 10-20 is the most fun lens i own hands down and it's on my camera 80% of the time, i love wide angle, never any hate directed towards that, just those do it all lenses that are not actual macro lenses they just focus slightly closer than most lenses
 
ahh my mistake! my bad. I agree though- usually if I am not shooting sports i will have my 11-16 on my camera. Its an awesome lens! i wished it focused a bit closer but its hasnt let me down yet. This summer i got to use a sigma 14 f2.8 and you could focus pretty much right in front of the glass (within an inch or 2). it was sweet!
 
Thanks guys.right now i'm deciding between these lenses:
Canon[/b] Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens with Kenko[/b] Auto Extension Tube Set
Tamron[/b] Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm
Tokina[/b] Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 12-24mm f/4
Tamron[/b] Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8
I can't have all of them cause thats a lot but maybe three with the canon lense.which ones do you think would go well together?
Also, thought I might as well post some photos while i'm in this forum.Please criticise.
DSC_0200.jpg

Window.jpg

DSC_0039_2-1.jpg

DSC_0098.jpg
 
If you get 17-15 i would suggest not going for the tokina 12-24. You overlap too much. I recommend the tokina 11-16 f2.8 over the 12-24 because you can get a little wider and the aperture is 2.8 (great in low light). I hear that the canon 10-20 is great too but have never used it (i shoot nikon). if that is a 2.8 lens consider that too. But the tokina is great, i have it on my d200 and its so fun to use. it is also extremely sharp even at 2.8
So what i would do is get (probably not all 3 at once because it will be expensive) the tokina 11-16 f2.8, the tamron 17-50, and something like a sigma/cannon 70/80-200 f2.8 (not sure if the canon is 70 or 80 on the lower end). This would give you great cover except for the 50-70 gap.
 
thanks for the suggestion!that setuo sounds good except for one problem.I need something that can shoot macro.
 
That is something that I would wait on getting. I thought i would love to do a lot of macro and got to borrow a macro lens for a week or 2 (it was a 55mm manual focus nikon lens from ages ago) and only used it once for macro. I would wait on it mostly because with the setup i recommended (or a similar one) you cover almost the whole of the range of focal lengths that you will need for most shots. If your set on getting a macro lens though, I cant help with that b/c i do not know most canon lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top