new toy (photography)

[Kevmaster]

You can't go wrong with Nikon.

yeh, i have a nikon n2020 camera right now...love the thing..olympus digital camera...not sure if i want to upgrade to the really nice digital camera or not...still thinking

a good review of this bad boy might push me over...grr

[Steelrat]

www.dpreview.com EXCELLENT reviews on almost all digital cameras. He does outstanding in-depth reviews, with sample pics.

For DSLRs, the best choices at the entry level point (or close to that) are the Canon 300D, the Niken D70, and the Canon 10D/20D. Please note that they are not all in the same price range, as the 300D is the cheapest, followed by the D70, and then the 10D/20D, and their performance roughly mirrors their price.

[Hexis]

As much as I love my Nikon N80, I would have to suggest Canon right now for Digital SLRs. Canon has a much better Digital line than Nikon. From the 300D to the 1Ds ($900 to $9000). The Canon Glass is compariable to the Nikon Glass (lenses). Canon has a more extensive offering of IS (Imagage Stabalized) lenses over Nikon's VR (Vibration Reduction, same thing as IS, different name). I think all in all Canon just has a much stronger ProSumer level offering all around.

[RamboPreacher]

nice, very nice...
but one thing I can't live without anymore that you can't get in an SLR:

[Jack & Coke]

I was going to buy a D70, theyre nice cameras. Unfortunately, i discovered the Canon 20D, and decided on that instead.

"Unfortunately" ???

don't you mean...

"Thank God" ?




I've had the 10D for over a year and a half, and I'm a 100% satisfied customer! I just love the Canon line of EOS lenses.

Although the 1D Mk 2 would be my No. 1 choice, it's a little bit out of my price range. Thus the 20D and it's improvements over the 10D look VERY appealing!

Steelrat, I think you'll be very happy with your new 20D. Which lenses do you plan on purchasing?

[Dayspring]

Where are you taking the Capoeira class in NJ?

[Steelrat]

"Unfortunately" ???

don't you mean...

"Thank God" ?




I've had the 10D for over a year and a half, and I'm a 100% satisfied customer! I just love the Canon line of EOS lenses.

Although the 1D Mk 2 would be my No. 1 choice, it's a little bit out of my price range. Thus the 20D and it's improvements over the 10D look VERY appealing!

Steelrat, I think you'll be very happy with your new 20D. Which lenses do you plan on purchasing?

I meant "unfortunately" because i had thought I could get away with a D70 and my current Nikon glass, until I started doing some real research and learned that a)my Nikon glass is junk, and b) the 20D, like the 10D, looks to be a fantastic camera. So my budget went from about $1K to over $2K. Sigh.

Musikman gave me some good advice on lenses. I think Im going to start with the 17-40L f/4 and the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS for starters. I really want the 16-35L f/2.8, but I can't justify the premium ($700) over the 17-40 just for the fast 2.8 aperature. I would also like to get the 70-200L f/2.8 IS sometime soon, and I think that would give me a good lens setup, along with maybe a nice 50mm prime. I'm definately going to avoid any of the EF-S lenses. What do you think?

What lenses do you run Jack?

[Jack & Coke]

Musikman gave me some good advice on lenses. I think Im going to start with the 17-40L f/4 and the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS for starters. I really want the 16-35L f/2.8, but I can't justify the premium ($700) over the 17-40 just for the fast 2.8 aperature. I would also like to get the 70-200L f/2.8 IS sometime soon, and I think that would give me a good lens setup, along with maybe a nice 50mm prime. I'm definately going to avoid any of the EF-S lenses. What do you think?

What lenses do you run Jack?

Hear's a nice site that I like:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

I have:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

My wish list:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM


My Primes are on my camera 90% of the time. I just love the 8 blade bokeh of the 50 1.4... it's my fav lens!


With a 1.6 mult. factor, the 50 is like a 80 (great portrait range). For a little more reach and cadid style shooting, I've goten some great shots from the 85 1.8 (which is like a 136).


When I need to go wide, I get great, tact sharp results from the 17-40. However, the 4 is too slow for natural light indoor shots (which is why the 16-35 2.8 looks so sweet).


The 28-135 is a GREAT lens for the price.

But after shooting with my primes and the 17-40, I got a little spoiled. now I only use the 28-135 when I need that extra reach, and I can't "zoom with my feet".

Like you, I've got my sights on the holy grail of long lenses, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS !!!

[Steelrat]

So, do you think the 17-40 would be adequate? I know WA lenses can be very good for indoor shots, and I'd rather use natural light, but that $700 extra, gahhh! Especially since I would mostly use it for outdoors. That would put me halfways towards that 70-200. Craph, I hate making expensive decisions.

[MantisMag]

Where are you taking the Capoeira class in NJ?

i started a capoeira club here at rowan university and convinced the gym to host the class.

[Jack & Coke]

So, do you think the 17-40 would be adequate? I know WA lenses can be very good for indoor shots, and I'd rather use natural light, but that $700 extra, gahhh! Especially since I would mostly use it for outdoors. That would put me halfways towards that 70-200. Craph, I hate making expensive decisions.

17-40 would be adequate, but you must be familiar with it's low light limitations (constant f/4).

Whether or not it's worth the extra $700 depends entirely on how important WA photos are for you. IMO, If WA is your game (most pics), then definately get the 16-35 2.8! However if WA account for about 1/3 to 1/4 or less of your shots, then you'll be more than satisfied with the 17-40L f/4 and spending the extra cash on other glass.

The way I look at it is like this...

Try to understand what type of photography you're into. Look at your photos, are they WA? MACRO? Candids? Portraits? etc. This is where you should spend your $$$.

I'm into candids and portraits, and I didn't want to spend too much all at once, thus I went with the primes.

However, if you're into general photography, and $1,300 is in your range, then I would get the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. It will be on your camera 95% of the time, and you will love it to death (even more than your Viking )

[MantisMag]

As much as I love my Nikon N80, I would have to suggest Canon right now for Digital SLRs. Canon has a much better Digital line than Nikon. From the 300D to the 1Ds ($900 to $9000). The Canon Glass is compariable to the Nikon Glass (lenses). Canon has a more extensive offering of IS (Imagage Stabalized) lenses over Nikon's VR (Vibration Reduction, same thing as IS, different name). I think all in all Canon just has a much stronger ProSumer level offering all around.

honestly i looked at the canon dSLR line when i was doing research into what camera to get. the d70 blows away the 300d at a small price premium. it's more equivalent to the 10d which costs quite a bit more. the 20d is another matter. when it comes out it will in all likelihood be significantly better than the d70 but it comes at a huge price premium of $500 for the body. imo that puts them in totally different price brackets and makes it impossible to make any reasonable comparison. "oh the 20d is better blah blah blah." well it damn well better be when it costs 50% more!

[Jack & Coke]

Mantis, sorry for all the Canon talk... but if it's any consolation, I also have an old Nikon F2 and a 50mm 1.4 similar to this one, but in all black:





BTW, congrats on the purchase of your D70. It's a very nice camera!

[MantisMag]

RP - i know what you mean. next time i buy a compact camera it's definitely going to have some sort of twisting feature. i love my old coolpix 2500 for that very reason. it's great for holding out at arm's legnth and taking a picture with a friend.

JC - no need to apologize at all. canons are great cameras. especially on the high end with the 1d and 1d mkII. no competition there. it's on the entry level end that interesting things are happening. this year it's nikon. next year maybe canon will release a 400d that will directly compete with the d70 and leapfrog it in terms of features. personally i don't think the 20d is the d70 killer that so many make it out to be because the pricepoints are just too different. then again it is significantly better and it's targeting a market segment that always has to have the latest and greatest so maybe it will.

[Jack & Coke]

JC - no need to apologize at all. canons are great cameras. especially on the high end with the 1d and 1d mkII. no competition there. it's on the entry level end that interesting things are happening. this year it's nikon. next year maybe canon will release a 400d that will directly compete with the d70 and leapfrog it in terms of features. personally i don't think the 20d is the d70 killer that so many make it out to be because the pricepoints are just too different. then again it is significantly better and it's targeting a market segment that always has to have the latest and greatest so maybe it will.

IMO, it's like MAC vs PC.

Both are great at what they do. The only major difference is which operating system you want to use. Windows XP or OS X.

In this case, you have to decide which glass you want to invest in. Nikor F mount or Canon EOS.

The camera body itself is almost moot. They're all so good at this stage in the DSLR evolution, that it would be very difficult to tell which camera took which pic (if you compare the actual output results).