Which Digital SLR?

[Brendan Goetz]

Hi gang. I am looking to add a digital SLR to my current camera lineup of the Sony DSC-T7, which is great for snaps and very portable, but not so good for action shots. I wanted to ask the community for suggestions on a good entry level SLR. I’m not much of a photog, but I’ve been the de facto photographer for my friends Thai boxing matches and MMA fights, and the T7 just isn’t cutting it. So what do you guys think? Let’s keep the price under a G (preferably WAY under…)

[Jason Dunn]

So I'm thinking....

Nikon D70 w/18-70mm lens - $824 USD
http://thoughtsmedia.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=8255541/search=Nikon+D70

or

Nikon D50 w/18-55mmlens - $509 USD
http://thoughtsmedia.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=8233716/search=Nikon+D50

or

Canon Digital Rebel XT w/18-55mmlens - $615 USD
http://thoughtsmedia.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=7139451/search=Canon+Digital+Rebel+XT

Because this is your first DSLR, the D50 would probably do just fine.

[Neil Enns]

Yeah, those are basically your choices. I'm sure Jason can tell you all about this, but you're not buying a body, you're buying a lens system. Whatever body you get will be the start of a never-ending desire to have more and better glass. Once you invest in the glass you'll never be able to switch brands.

Nikon or Canon? That's the decision :) I have Canon. Jason went to the dark side and bought Nikon.

*grin*

Neil

[Gordo]

My vote is for the Canon camp.

One thing to consider:

1) How do you hold your camera?

If you currently hold the camera and take your shots using the LCD display, you lose that ability with the DSLR.

If you really like this method of taking pictures you might want to consider a high end pro-sumer point and shoot. More compact, one lens. Also you mentioned you were not really into Photography, so that might also influence you towards the pro-sumer type camera.

OR, you can simply get the DSLR with a 18-70 zoom lens and go wild.

[Jason Eaton]

I'll throw in a vote for the Canon Rebel XT. So far been loving it, no complaints. I can post some links to some photos if you like... the macro and flash at low level lights has been very good.

[Doug Johnson]

I'm a Canon guy too. Not that the Nikons are bad cameras. But I do like Canon a bit better. The Digital Rebel XT is quite a nice camera and compares quite favorably to much more expensive models.

[Brendan Goetz]

Thanks guys. I might go Canon.

[Jason Dunn]

Thanks guys. I might go Canon.

Canon definitely makes great cameras, but you owe it to yourself to go down to a local store and get some hands-on with each camera. Myself, I was a die-hard Canon fan until I picked up the Nikon camera and fell in love with the way it felt and handled. That's not something you can get from the specs.

[Brendan Goetz]

will do. i love going down to J&R and teasing those guys. "sorry just browsing. i do all my shopping on the internets!"

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

That much is true. Nikon's egronomics have always been better to me. As Jason says, it's something that no paper spec will tell you, nor any marketing hogwash will highlight!

Regardless of what camera you pick, it looks like you'll need another lens for the boxing matches. Probably a 70-300 from either company.

[bcries]

Though Canon and Nikon are the two biggest DSLR sellers, its kind of silly to pretend that they are the only two good options. They may send out the most review models and catch the most headlines - but I suspect this is because of their prior market performance with film SLRs. But saying "either Canon or Nikon" is like saying "either WalMart or BestBuy".

Consider the dark horse... Olympus. Many people claim that Oly DSLRs give better colour reproduction right out of the camera, and their entry-level camera bodies (E-300, E-500, E-330) offer way more features out of the box at the same price point. If value is what you're looking for, the E-500 can't be ignored (see Phil Askey's comments at the end of his review http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse500/).

Olympus uses the Four Thirds lens mount system - an open standard that has been developed with Sigma, Panasonic, Fuji, Kodak, etc. Basically all the little fish in the camera pond have joined together and designed a superior lens system for digital from the ground up, instead of just continuing with their old proprietary film lens mounts (like Canon and Nikon did). Because all Four Thirds lenses are interchangable, the future value offered to the consumer is paramount. This and other Thoughts Media sites often take a tone of rewarding, say, portable MP3 players for their use of open standards and interoperability; the consistency of promoting Canon and Nikon (two proprietary giants) are certainly curious.

The other thing you'll get with Olympus on all models is a thin dust filter over the CCD that vibrates rapidly when the camera starts up, knocking off any particles that might have got into the chamber when changing lenses. If you ever want to be able to swap lenses outside of a sterile lab :) then go with Olympus, because you don't have to worry about dust. Novice Canon or Nikon users who only buy the kit lens and never remove it may be okay, but as soon as they start swapping glass, they're fumbling with home cue-tip solutions or frequent visits to a camera shop to get their CCD cleaned. When shopping for my first DSLR, I found this feature hard to pass up.

The E-500 feels much more solid in adult hands than the Digital Rebel XT, according to most who've held both. The one thing comparable Canon and Nikon entry models will give you over Olympus is lower noise at high ISOs (for shooting in the dark) and slightly faster AF speeds. For me these tradeoffs were fine, for the following reasons (respectively):
- high ISO noise is easily removed with post-processing software
- higher AF speeds will come in the future when I invest in a higher end camera body for the same system... the three year old pro Oly E-1 certainly performs in this regard.

Speaking of future purchases, the open Four Thirds standard means that when one day upgrade to a pro camera body, I'll be able to choose from Olympus, Panasonic, and maybe Fuji/Kodak/Sigma models. All are guaranteed to work with my current lenses.

Do some research and try some out.

[Doug Johnson]

Nikon does build good cameras, but I think in this price range that the Canon is a better choice. And this is primarily because of the higher resolution (8 vs 6 megapixels) and Canon's use of CMOS instead of CCD, which results in pictures with lower noise. It allows cleaner image under all circumstances.

Not to discount Olympus' offering, which has some very cool features, but the problem with going with Olympus or any of the other brands other than Canon/Nikon, is variety and availablility of accessories: lenses, flashes, etc. The Canon and Nikon offerings have an extremely wide collection of offerings to support their cameras, which is something that you just can't get from any other manufacturer.

[Doug Johnson]

The other thing you'll get with Olympus on all models is a thin dust filter over the CCD that vibrates rapidly when the camera starts up, knocking off any particles that might have got into the chamber when changing lenses. If you ever want to be able to swap lenses outside of a sterile lab :) then go with Olympus, because you don't have to worry about dust. Novice Canon or Nikon users who only buy the kit lens and never remove it may be okay, but as soon as they start swapping glass, they're fumbling with home cue-tip solutions or frequent visits to a camera shop to get their CCD cleaned. When shopping for my first DSLR, I found this feature hard to pass up.
This isn't as big a problem as it might seem. I have shot about 25,000 pictures on my Canons, changing lenses frequently, and have only had to clean my sensor twice.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Here's the advice I give everyone.

Whatever you decide, just do it.

The longer you're talking about it and not actually buying and using, the more you're missing out. Don't get hooked in by a measurebator who will dazzle you with statistics and such. Just buy a camera you like (after making an informed decision) and enjoy it. Every day spent thinking about which one to buy is a day not spent actually taking pictures.

When I bought my XT, I was totally conflicted between it and the D70. I went a whole summer without buying either and I swore I would NEVER let that kind of stupidity happen to me again.

Good luck and happy shooting!

[bcries]

Not to discount Olympus' offering, which has some very cool features, but the problem with going with Olympus or any of the other brands other than Canon/Nikon, is variety and availablility of accessories: lenses, flashes, etc. The Canon and Nikon offerings have an extremely wide collection of offerings to support their cameras, which is something that you just can't get from any other manufacturer.

In terms of lenses, Canon/Nikon are film-plenty and digital-fewer. You can slap an old film lens on a digital SLR, but you'll experience light degredation around the edges... this is because film lenses were designed to shine light on the film's surface at all kinds of angles, but CMOS and CCD chips can only process light rays that are aimed perpendicular to the chip. Designed-for-digital lenses make this accomodation; while Canon and Nikon systems have SOME digital lenses, all Four Thirds system lenses are digital (and have certain quality advantages like smaller, lighter telephotos). I think there's an element of parity here. As for flashes and other accessories, Olympus sells three different grades of external TTL flashes for the E-500, a number of different eyecups, etc. There are no-name options appearing as well.

Maybe we should liken this decision to the classic dilemma facing used car buyers in North America during the 1980's and 90's... the domestic GM/Ford cars (i.e. Canon/Nikon) may be popular and have plenty of cheap parts out on the market for repairs... while the foreign VW/Honda cars are themselves superior in performance and features, albeit more expensive to service and replace parts on. Do you invest in an established system that tries to fit digital features into old proprietary film mounts, or a system that has made smart choices - delivering more features for less money with the promise of future interoperability?

You know which choice a new car buyer tends to make these days... though I suspect there will always be good ol' boys in my hometown having Chevy/GMC truck debates :P

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

And this is primarily because of the higher resolution (8 vs 6 megapixels) and Canon's use of CMOS instead of CCD, which results in pictures with lower noise. It allows cleaner image under all circumstances.


6 to 8 is a small jump so it's not a deal breaker for many. Also, CMOS does not offer a significant advantage under ALL circumstances. Canon's CMOS offers an advantage in low-light shooting using high ISO settings. Those two conditions of low-light and high ISO must be met, otherwise you're just pixel-peeping.

Plus I do like some grain; Canon's CMOS look is too lifeless for my taste.

Once again I must say you cannot discount the egronomics and the UI, so you can't say that, oh, it comes with a nicer spec on paper, it must be better!

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Oh well, sooner or later someone is going to start reproducing the Olympus marketing material... I might as well be the first to rebutt them.

Just because it's a "digital" lens doesn't mean the laws of physics suddenly change. Olympus's claim to having lower angles of incidence comes mainly from them using a more squarish sensor and smaller sensor relative to the lens mount size. Even then it hinges greatly on the lens design. Tried the 14-45 lately?

Digital lenses are quite the marketing tool. The main benefit of the digital lenses are the more usable focal lengths on wider lenses. Some companies claim they use new and better coatings for "digital" use but really that smacks of an admission that they were using inferior coatings in the first place.

There are some older lenses that don't work well with digital sensors, yes, but they're mainly the old low-end stuff. I have a 20 year old Nikkor 70-210/4 that has problems with off-axis CA that's quite perplexing to control. On the other hand I had a 20/2.8 that worked great, and that's a THIRTY year-old design from Nikon.

And if you don't believe me, Bjorn Rorslett is a professional nature photographer, and he's using lenses even older than that. Check http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html and see what he says about older Nikkors in his lens reviews. I know other pros like him, and they simply don't care about the "digital" designation. It's about the lens performance out in the field.

On to the next issue.

The 4/3s lens mount is hardly an open standard. Just because a few companies have decided they'll share the specifications amongst themselves doesn't mean it's any more open than Nikon's F-mount (which by the way, they're more than willing to license out, as evident by the Sinar manual cameras and the Fuji S-series) or Canon's EF-mount (which I believe also has a licensing scheme). If you don't believe me try getting the specifications to the 4/3s mount. You won't find it freely like a true open standard.

On lens availability, if you look beyond OEM offerings to 3rd party lens makers, you'll find that Nikon and Canon systems swell even more. You can get some good glass at affordable prices, something not possible with the 4/3 lenses (it's either good Olympus glass at stupid prices, so-so Olympus glass at average prices, or crap Sigma glass at prices you shouldn't be paying).

You mentioned upgrading to a pro-body. The Four-thirds system has none. Zero. The E-1 has been phased out, and even then compared to the pro DSLRs then it was hardly a standout. Now there might be one in the future, but think about this: Professionals all over the world are already on either Nikon or Canon. Switching systems is an expensive COST attached to their business. What incentive is there to produce a pro body to break into this market which is not particularly profitable? Not to mention that none of the 4/3s companies have either Nikon's or Canon's expertise in producing AND supporting professional bodies. Olympus never came up with a true professional body (though many pros used the OM series) and Kodak, well, see the recent DCS-14n saga...

There are advantages to the Four Thirds system, yes, but currently you're just limiting yourself to such a small system if you choose to go the 4/3s route. Unless you don't mind the constraints, I simply cannot recommend the 4/3s system to most DSLR buyers.

[Brendan Goetz]

What lens do I want for a D50 if I’m going to be shooting photos ringside at a fight?



What if I’m shooting flying sharks 40 ft off the back of a boat? (no joke).

[Vincent Ferrari]

Literally at ringside? Like on the apron?

You have lots of choices. Look for a zoom in the 18-150 range with an aperture of 2.8 or better (should allow for low light, obviously if you can swing a 1.8 or 1.4 even better)

In the crowd at ringside? Probably slightly longer (into the 300mm range). Same aperture.

As I said, those apertures depend on the lighting in the arena / gym. If it's well lit you can go to a 3.5 or 4.0 possibly. If you can rent first, that might be a better move for you, seeing as you'll have to gauge the efficiency of the lenses you'll want to own.

[Brendan Goetz]

yes on the apron. my friend is involved in putting together amateur fights. i'm looking to do some photography for his website.

what would you guys think of this package for starters.

http://shop.resellerratings.com/PD-28520182/FD-7185/kworg-nikon%20d50/SB-2

i also want to be able to do some good nature photography (safaris, flying sharks, etc.).

what do you guys think?

[Vincent Ferrari]

Well, the focal range on both seems okay for what you need, but I don't believe you're gonna get a big enough aperture (I reckon those are in the 4 range).

For outdoor, you'd be okay, but they might be a bit slow if you're trying to catch flying fish ;-)

[craigf]

You seem like a fan of Sony gear, so you may want to hold off for another month or less until Sony fully launches their forthcoming 'alpha' series of DSLRs. These will use lenses having the widely available Minolta AF mount (some very, very good glass) and will be the only brand to have in-body anti-shake, which is a *really* nice feature (I have the Konica Minolta 5D, which has the same AS tech as what Sony acquired, and it's quite effective). If you're not in a rush, wait a bit -- you may be happy with something other than a Canikon.

[Brendan Goetz]

Don't know if people are still reading this thread, but what kind of flash should i get to go with the D50 for the boxing photography i was talking about?

thanks,
-B

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

The SB600 should suffice. If you know what GN means without resorting to google, then maybe a SB800 if you don't mind the extra expense and looking to a higher-end body in future.

[Roosterman]

While not technically a DSLR I would highly reccommend

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/
or, if you can't find it, the new model is
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz30/

I have the FZ20 and love it. You can go from a point and shoot to fully maual where you adjust everything. Or anything in between. Has a Leica lens with optical magnification up to 12x with an excellent image stablizer. Beautiful pictures from a beautiful camera. Much more reasonable price wise too. I just saw the 20 on Newegg for $350.