General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
When it comes to DSLRs, Nikon or Canon is purely a matter of preference. You can't really say one is better than the other. However, personally I prefer Canon because the first time I played with a Nikon, I looked at it for 10 mins and still couldn't figure out how to use the damn thing. With Canon it's much more intuitive and I didn't even need to read the instructions to perform fairly complicated tasks with it.
Image quality wise, they are very similar (Nikon takes the edge at high ISO performance and Canon with detail), so the main consideration when making the choice is lens selection and usability (Both of which Canon wins IMO). However, when it comes to bang for buck, I'd actually say the Sony A200 takes the crown. You can pick one up for around £230 and there are a wealth of Minolta A-mount compatible lenses you can pick up for it on ebay, for much less than you would pay for a new lens. The only downside is that Sony tends to have weaker high ISO performance than both Nikon and Canon, however on the upside it has in-body image stabilization so you will get stabilization with any lens you use. So, if you're looking for a cheap starting camera, and want to experiment with different lenses but not pay a fortune for them, I'd say find a cheap Sony Alpha model and hit ebay. [thumbup] |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
Hey so I'm looking into getting a entry-level dslr. Looking at nikon with a budget of about 600$. So consider that you're not buying a camera... you're buying INTO a system. In that case, you should pretty much pick Canon or Nikon. For me, Nikon cameras win based on ergonomics, as well as metering features. For $600, I think my suggestion will be unconventional. Try to pick up a used D40 from reputable retailer, such as B&H or Adorama or Cameta. You should be able to get a D40 + 18-55 f3.5-5.6 VR lens for about $400. Then choose whether you want to spend $200 to get a 55-200 f4-5.6 lens, a 35mm f1.8 prime, or an SB-600 flash, depending on what you want to do with the camera. |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
I would disagree with InsaneChild... if only because an entry-level DSLR is often merely the beginning. Plus I'd like to get to know both cannon and nikon. Gives me a nice wide range of choices. Thanks guys |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
I would disagree with InsaneChild... if only because an entry-level DSLR is often merely the beginning. Take my current setup as an example. I bought an A200 + 18-70 kit lens for £230. I then bought a Minolta 70-210mm f4 on ebay for £120, a 50mm f1.7 for £70 and a £35-70mm f3.5-4.5 for £11. That's £430 spent in total, which is not even enough to buy a Canon 450D body with no lens. So, with the Sony system and 4 lenses, I MUCH more enabled to take better photos than a Canon or Nikon entry level camera with just the kit lens, plus I am able to upgrade to a semi-pro Canon or Nikon camera when I'm ready, without feeling guilty about wasting money on gear for another system. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
The advantage of Sony is that you can stabilise 20 year old prime lenses and any lens you can think of after that, as stabilisation is built in to the body.
I recently tested my 50mm f1.4 in low light with the SteadyShot stabilisation switched off, which I'd not done before. You might think it's not that important with a fast lens, but you sure do you miss it when it's off. Sony also has the best live view system, should you want it. Have tried it on the latest Canons and found it extremely limited. Can't comment on Nikon in this regard. I got an A300 in late 2008, followed recently by a bargain brand new A700 from clearance stock. The A700 doesn't have live view, which I've found is a bit of a disadvantage in certain situations, but it makes up for that with it's excellent viewfinder. Steer clear of the A230/330/380, as the handling is diabolical due to the pathetic grip, but a used A200/A300/A350 would be a good purchase. Beware that the A200 doesn't have live view. The downside of the A2xx/3xx series is ISO performance (anything above ISO800 isn't great), so obviously you'd be at a disadvantage if you need to stop subject motion blur, but in body stabilisation can go someway towards counteracting the negative effects of slower shutter speed at lower ISO when it comes to camera shake. If you can stretch your budget, the A500 is a nice camera. It has a better feature set than the A2xx/a3xx (kind of obvious), including Auto HDR and 5fps, but also has much improved ISO performance. ISO 3200 is very usable on this model. If you don't need live view, the A450 should be a cheaper alternative, but it's newly announced, so I have no idea of availability where you are. |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
Think I may have found something.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...LR_Camera.html Then the starter lense I'll go with http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._70_300mm.html Lense just until I get a few more bucks then going Wide angle or tele. Opinions? |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
Think I may have found something. The rule of thumb is that you need the reciprocal of focal length as shutterspeed to maintain at least some sharpness, if no stabilization. Getting 1/300s @ f5.6 means you'll need to shoot almost strictly outside during the middle of the day. Do youself a favor, buy this lens instead: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...G_VR_AF_S.html ... if you're going to go Nikon. |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
Yes to the body, waaaay no to the lens. 300mm @ f5.6 with no VR = no good images unless taken in bright light. |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
The D5000 is a nice camera, but before you buy, make sure you have tried one in your hands. You should do this with any DSLR. That being said, I do like the D40 more than the D5000, despite the D5000 having a much better sensor and better high ISO capabilities. I simply don't think it's worth the money. If you're spending $500 on a D5000, you should spend $780 on a D90. Money much better spent. |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
I would love the opportunity to try one out first. Seeing as where I live we don't have photography shops anywhere with in an hour radius. This is a refurb item with a 90 day warranty.
I'm pretty new to the SLR area, been reading a lot up on it. I'm loving the option for 720P video. And the ISO capabilities are a huge bonus for me. Plus I've always wanted the option of how ever long exposure I want. Wanna try to get some nice stary night shots. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
Think I may have found something. The telephoto lens you have suggested above (70-300mm) will be much too narrow for every day use. You will find it very difficult to get a subject to fit in the shot unless you're some distance away. These lenses are usually used for zoos, sport events and shooting birds etc. You will need one eventually but not before needing a normal zoom first. I'd suggest going for this used kit instead: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...LR_Camera.html It comes with the VR stabilized kit lens, a mem card and a bag, everything you need to get started straight away, and cheaper than buying the kit lens separately. |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
Now that you've decided on the brand and model, it comes down to the lens. For every day shooting, you will need a lens that is in the range of 30mm (for a cropped sensor camera). Lenses in this focal range are called "normal" lenses, as they are closest to the perspective that the human eye sees. Most zoom kit lenses will fall into this range (18-55mm). Thanks all for your help. Gave me some new insight to this whole project. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|