$1200 To Spend...What Camera To Get???

[-hh]

Anyway, I called the 20D "overkill" if all you have left is $150 for a telephoto lens. A 20D on that kind of lens is overkill.

In an ideal world, one would probably want to spend closer to equal dollar values for body and lens (even if other lenses come along later), rather than to have either half suck up 90% of the budget.

For example, in the old days of film, we would probably not have had any problems recommending something like an EOS 3 with the 70-200 f/4 as the solution at this price point.

A 20D on a 70-200 USM L lens is not over kill ;-)

Here's proof of that. Its not a Jumping Horse, but at least she's Jumping:

EXIF data at home (I'll add it later), but this is from a 20D with the f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x teleextender, handheld, probably at around max zoom (~450mm effective).

EDIT:
1/500sec @ f/5.6, 280mm (max; ~450mm effective), ISO 100. As viewed, its nearly full-frame.

-hh

 

[form]

If he goes the Nikon route, he'll probably find camera-brand lenses to be just as expensive or more so than Canon.

I don't see anything wrong with him taking photos and selling them like that. I'd do the same if I could. Maybe he'll make some pro photographers actually have to work for their money by putting forth the effort and doing a genuinely better job, like they SHOULD. People get lazy when they have a monopoly; the advent of everybody having affordable digicams and selling their work may force the pros to do what they really should have been doing all this time by threatening their existence if they don't.

If he could afford it, he would most likely be happiest with the combination of Rebel XT and 70-200mm f/4L. Even with the third to full stop deficit, he'll be able to #1 up the ISO and still get better image quality, #2 focus much faster, #3 store files much faster...and some other things I can't think of at the moment because my brain doesn't work worth a damned anymore.

One extra note about the Rebel XT and 20D: Supposedly, their ISO settings are about 1/3 of a stop more sensitive than the number they're rated at, which means that at f/4, the exposure might be about equal to f/3.5.

I'm actually thinking very seriously of selling off my macro lens and putting the money towards a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L.

 

[seenew]

I'm actually thinking very seriously of selling off my macro lens and putting the money towards a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L.

How much?

 

[andiwm2003]

I think the higher end kit lens that comes with the D70 is better than the kit lenses that come with both the D50 and Canon 350D. But I just can't really recommend Nikon DSLR's at the moment, I think Nikon is somewhat foolish to continue to use CCD technology when Canon's CMOS has proven that if everything else is equal CMOS provides lower noise images.
.....................................

sony uses a 10.3 MP CMOS in their DSC-R1 camera. But in their brand new DSLR A100K they use a CCD chip. If the CMOS was so superior to the CCD wouldn't sony stay with the CMOS? especially since sony makes those chips and wants to enter the DSLR market? Am I missing something?

 

[jared_kipe]

sony uses a 10.3 MP CMOS in their DSC-R1 camera. But in their brand new DSLR A100K they use a CCD chip. If the CMOS was so superior to the CCD wouldn't sony stay with the CMOS? especially since sony makes those chips and wants to enter the DSLR market? Am I missing something?

Just because sony is doing the same thing doesn't make it right. A parallel with OSX and windows might suffice.

There is probably a reason, and its most likely financial. Perhaps it is easier to make large CCD's or the yields are better. But just because more people use CCD doesn't mean CMOS isn't superior.

 

[Earendil]

I think the higher end kit lens that comes with the D70 is better than the kit lenses that come with both the D50 and Canon 350D. But I just can't really recommend Nikon DSLR's at the moment, I think Nikon is somewhat foolish to continue to use CCD technology when Canon's CMOS has proven that if everything else is equal CMOS provides lower noise images.

I seem to remember that back when this thread started there were a few people who were looking to upgrade. So I was giving advice based on what I consider to be generic needs. If someone is only buying it to take pictures of things at telephoto distance, then buying a telephoto lens is just fine. However horses are big animals, and usually let you get pretty close to them, so it isn't like they couldn't use normal focal lengths. Or even crop a little bit.

Fair enough!
I'd say that during a horse show of that nature (again, see his pictures) getting inside the arena are taking pictures may not be possible. *usually* (but not always) it's easier to back up from a subject than get closer.

I think that for most people's needs, having a good body (I'm not recommending a 5D or D200 or D2X or 1DmkII) with a decent lens and working up in lens quality is perferable to getting a lower end body and a really good lens. That said, the lower end camera bodies are close to the high end bodies in everything but ergonomics.

The experienced photographers at the Dpreview.com forums strongly advised me otherwise. The body you will keep for a couple of years, they are outdated fast. A good lens you will keep for years and years.
Also a good lens holds its value far better than a camera body, so even if you did want to sell a good (but not the best) lens you should be bale to for a very fair price. However your camera body will be worth far less when it comes time to upgrade/replace.
It's probably analogis (thought not pefectly) to a computer vs monitor. The computer will be outdated and old long before the monitor is. Don't buy a cheap 13in monitor...

That said, I don't consider the 17-70mm or 18-125mm sigma lenses to be crappy lenses. They are very sharp lenses, less so on the wide end, but certainly sharp wide open when you get past 24mm or so. As I've said before, even with my nice f2.8 lenses I rarely shoot anything wider than f5.6 unless I'm trying to isolate the subject from the back or foreground.

Depends on the subject I suppose... If you have a fast moving subject through the shade you might want as much light as you can get to boost that shutter speed up. Also I would advise the 70-200 more for the lightning fast focus (very important for fast one time shot targets) than for the f/4.0. Thought that extra light is very VERY helpful and I shoot wide open against humming birds all the time.

To each his own, there is no perfect camera/lens set up. Only an optimum for your current shooting situation. If he's making money by shooting moving targets where timing is important, and is in the situation of selling his work, I'd go for a nice tele lens. But that's me.

And I wouldn't say the lenses you mentioned were bad lenses. I'm considering one of them myself (when I get money...). However if he is going to get a tele lens to make money with it is my opinion that he should spend more than $200 which would only get him the dirt cheap tele that neither is a fast lens, fast focus, or all that sharp.

You get what you pay for.

Cheers,
Tyler

 

[Earendil]

what exactly is you setup and how much did it cost? i'm in the market as well (although purely for fun, nothing professional at all).

My passion is shooting subjects that no one really sees, either due to the angle, or more often by freezing fast action.
I live in a tourist town that offers only about 20 different sports, and people come from all over the world. Money there is easier to make if you have a nice camera and a fast tele
I also enjoy birding, and want to capture that, especially hummingbirds.

However coming from a fuji s5000 that had a 30-300mm equiv lens on the front of it I also wanted to experience the wide angels, and see what that was about.

My budget was about $1600, and at first I was thinking of getting the 20D, dropping the kit lens and buying only the body for about $1000 and splitting the remaining $600 between a decent wide angle and a cheap tele. However the guys at Dpreview convinced me that for what I wanted, I should spend my money on a nice tele, that the cheap tele lenses really were just that, cheap. They also, while not being fond of the kit lens, said it would suffice.

With the kit lens only adding like $80 to the price tag (retailing like $100) I decided to go with that, and get a 70-200 f/4.0 L.

So from Adorama.com I picked up a refurb 20D with a kit lens ($999) and a 70-200 ($540), CF card and extra battery and only BARELY broke my budget.

I tell you, with complete honesty, that I could not be happier with my choice. The kit lens is perfectly fine for what I do, and serves me very well. I still push the limits of the 70-200, both in distance and in focus speed. Sometimes it doesn't keep up with me, but I couldn't imagine using anything that was slow. I'd have missed 80% of the good pictures I have, without a doubt.

The 20D with the 70-200 f/4L outperforms my fuji 30-300 by a mile, offering pictures easily twice as good, even if you crop the 20D pictures so they are of equal size. It has amazing "digital zoom"

I'm happy enough with this that my next purchase won't be a wide angle lens, but a 1.4 extender and a 50mm f/1.8 prime. After that an external flash, and down the road (years) I'll pick up an off brand really nice wide angle that goes down to 2.8.

The 20D and 70-200 is light as a feather, and I can hand hold it for hours on end. I beefed up though using the college's D70 with a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR (Vibration Reduction, same as Canons IS). OMG what a monster!!
So as spoiled as I already was, I am quite happy with the Canon 70-200, and for a $540 lens it focuses just as fast the $2200 Nikkor!

Any other info, experience, or pictures I can offer to anyone please ask away or PM me.

Cheers,
Tyler

 

[form]

Well my macro lens goes for about $460 new online, plus a $40 rebate. I really don't have enough extra money to put towards a new 70-200 f/4, even if I sold my macro lens for...$375. It's about 5 months old, in, I think, mint condition.

 

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Mission Complete

So I went ahead and bought the Nikon D50 and two Nikkor Lenses (I didn't want off-brand lenses). The lenses (a regular 18-55 mm and a 70-300 mm) aren't anything super fancy, but they are lightyears ahead of the Minolta I have...

...I also bought a 133x Lexar 2 GB storage card and a monopod (for 100 bucks).

It's going to take me a while to get used to it, but the shots I took of some jumping horses today were vastly better than what I had taken before...

No longer do I need to feel guilty about ordering 8x10s for a customer because the resolution isn't high enough. I'm so excited!

I'll be starting a thread soon describing how I developed my photography business - inside the thread, I'll post some comparison shots between my old camera and my new camera.

For now, though, thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread (even Clix Pix, who's brutal honesty was much appreciated - albeit a bit harsh). Hopefully this thread helps others in a similar situation as myself!

 

[Abstract]

Despite what I said about getting a Canon and taking people's advice about the 70-200 f/4, I'm actually glad you went with Nikon instead. The D50 is a great place to start.

I think that for most people's needs, having a good body (I'm not recommending a 5D or D200 or D2X or 1DmkII) with a decent lens and working up in lens quality is perferable to getting a lower end body and a really good lens.

But a lower budget body and a more expensive lens would allow him to get the results he wants. A nicer body with a cheaper lens won't allow him to get the photos he wants because the lens may not be fast enough to shoot moving horses. The lens can definitely be a limitation, while the DSLR body likely won't be.

 

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

The lens I got is plenty fast to take pictures of horses...the photos I took today were great. I have no idea what the specs on the lens are...but it's plenty for my needs (and I can always upgrade in the future).

 

[ChrisA]

Well my macro lens goes for about $460 new online, plus a $40 rebate. I really don't have enough extra money to put towards a new 70-200 f/4, even if I sold my macro lens for...$375. It's about 5 months old, in, I think, mint condition.

I'm still using my 55mm f/3.5 "micro-nikor". When it was first introduced this was the sharpest lens made for a 35mm camera. It still produces an image sharper then the D50 can record (the D50 has only 125 pixels per millimeter) The 55 on the D50 (with the 1.5 crop factor) can get close enough that a US Quarter more than fills the frame. This lens sells on the used market now for abut $65 or $75. One advanage of Nikon is the huge number of lenses that still work going all the way back to the late 1950's Of course the D50's meter will not work but one test shot and youu've got the exposure

An other macro option is the old 35-80 which was a "kit lens" on the N90 or N8080. It is auto focus and has a "macro mode" that goes down to about 4 inches from the lens. It's a sharp lens and currently sells for well under $100

This is why recommend Nikon to someone on w tight budget and always say to shop for lenses first.

 

[ChrisA]

There is probably a reason, and its most likely financial. Perhaps it is easier to make large CCD's or the yields are better. But just because more people use CCD doesn't mean CMOS isn't superior.

In 2006 we are in the middle of a cross over. CCD technology is now at least a couple of decades old. (I remember working seeing CCDs in he early 80's) The process has been matured and efficiency is very good. CMOS is a newer process that in theory has some advantages but being a newer technology the real-world CMOS sensors are not as close to theory yet. there is still room to improve. The CMOS should be cheaper to make too. At this point they are about equal in performance in 10 years maybe the CMOS will have the edge.

The key here is "performance to cost ratio" Not absolute performance. Best absolute performance requires some exotic tech, like back illuminated CCD chilled to low temperature and operated in a vacuum. Astronomers use camera like this and pay 6 figure prices. For a DSLR you don't want "best" you want "best for a give price point" which is much different

 

[form]

Well as far as resolution goes, I was reminded a while back that medium format pretty much does away with any issues in that regard which might hamper the small format user.

Shrug, I guess I don't consider the value of used lenses all that much because I don't trust the sellers, nor do I feel comfortable about having no warranty at all. I haven't bought any used camera equipment yet.

If the new lenses are fast enough, then I don't really see why you had to use a high speed mode on your old camera, because the apertures on the nikon are cutting out quite a bit more light at all focal lengths. It's been my experience that consumer and/or compact cameras don't often stop down unless there's too much light in a scene and they have to slow the shutter speed...but maybe that's not so with yours. And even so, your minolta had aperture priority anyway, so that issue could easily have been bypassed.

What ISO/focal lengths are you shooting the horses at?

 

[Clix Pix]

Congratulations!

I'm glad that you've gotten a camera and a couple of lenses to get you on your way.... As a fellow Nikon user I'm happy that you chose to go with Nikon over Canon, but the reality is that both manufacturers produce good cameras and lenses. As someone else has pointed out, the advantage that Nikon has is that, yes, you can use older lenses on your brand-new digital camera body. I've got a couple that are no longer made any more which work just fine on my D70 and D200. This is nice if you have the opportunity to pick up a used lens somewhere, but yes, you do need to be cautious about that. Buying off eBay can be risky. It's usually better to get used equipment directly from a camera dealer which has an inventory of gear that people have traded in or placed there on consignmnent.

ChrisA mentions the 55mm micro-nikkor. The current macro lens that Nikon is still offering in that size category is the excellent 60mm, which is very reasonably priced as well. It is one of my favorite lenses. Nikon also offers the 105mm and since they have recently come out with a VR version of this lens, you might be able to pick up a gently used "regular" 105mm that someone is trading in for the VR version. This gives you a little more breathing space between yourself and the subject, which is rather important when shooting skittish bugs and such.

Anyway, right now you've got enough on your plate with learning your new equipment and how to get the best shots with your lenses. Have fun!

 

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Well as far as resolution goes, I was reminded a while back that medium format pretty much does away with any issues in that regard which might hamper the small format user.

Shrug, I guess I don't consider the value of used lenses all that much because I don't trust the sellers, nor do I feel comfortable about having no warranty at all. I haven't bought any used camera equipment yet.

If the new lenses are fast enough, then I don't really see why you had to use a high speed mode on your old camera, because the apertures on the nikon are cutting out quite a bit more light at all focal lengths. It's been my experience that consumer and/or compact cameras don't often stop down unless there's too much light in a scene and they have to slow the shutter speed...but maybe that's not so with yours. And even so, your minolta had aperture priority anyway, so that issue could easily have been bypassed.

What ISO/focal lengths are you shooting the horses at?

Oh yeah, I forgot! When I went out to take some more photos of horses (w/my new camera), I completely forgot about the continuous shutter mode - the camera shoots so quickly that I just take a shot when the horse is over the jump (much better).

Thanks for everyone's comments!

 

[gwuMACaddict]

The current macro lens that Nikon is still offering in that size category is the excellent 60mm, which is very reasonably priced as well.

Sweet, sweet lens. Has been on my list for a while... Would have bought it long ago if I wasn't always borrowing one from my buddy.

And congrats on the D50!

 

[andiwm2003]

I decided to spend $1500 on a DSLR.

So far I want a Sony Alpha because i have a couple of (consumer) telephoto lenses and filters and the remote around (seems to fit) . And i like the Minolta/Sony handling.

So my list is:

Sony A100 (body only) $899
Sigma Zoom Wide Angle 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Autofocus Lens $390
Sandisk 4GB Extreme III CompactFlash Card Price : $ 219.95
Sony Service Plan with Accidental Damage from Handling Protection (ADH) $109

That ends up at ~$1620 what is roughly in the budget.

My questions are:

Is the Sigma Zoom worth the extra money over the kit lens (SAL1870 DT18-70mm F3.5-5.6 Lens Features)?

Do I need a 4GB card or is 2 GB enough? Do people always shoot in RAW or do they mostly JPEG and only once in a while RAW? Also, go for one 4GB card or two 2GB cards?

What is the best extended warranty to get?


Thanks for any input.

Andi

 

[Mike Teezie]

I decided to spend $1500 on a DSLR.

So far I want a Sony Alpha because i have a couple of (consumer) telephoto lenses and filters and the remote around (seems to fit) . And i like the Minolta/Sony handling.

So my list is:

Sony A100 (body only) $899
Sigma Zoom Wide Angle 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Autofocus Lens $390
Sandisk 4GB Extreme III CompactFlash Card Price : $ 219.95
Sony Service Plan with Accidental Damage from Handling Protection (ADH) $109

That ends up at ~$1620 what is roughly in the budget.

My questions are:

Is the Sigma Zoom worth the extra money over the kit lens (SAL1870 DT18-70mm F3.5-5.6 Lens Features)?

Do I need a 4GB card or is 2 GB enough? Do people always shoot in RAW or do they mostly JPEG and only once in a while RAW? Also, go for one 4GB card or two 2GB cards?

What is the best extended warranty to get?


Thanks for any input.

Andi

I'm not familiar with the camera or the lenses you've listed here, but I can say that it's probably more wise to go with two 2 gig cards instead of one 4 gig. That way, if one takes a crap on you, you can keep shooting until you replace it.

 

[law guy]

I think Amazon has rebates on Canon if you purchase before July 15th. That's something else to consider.

B&H is cheaper - just checking prices - esp. using the PSMAY code. The Canon rebates are from any dealer through the 15th.

350D / Rebel XT - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=435702&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

20D - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=435697&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

30D - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=435696&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

And here's your lens - 70-200 f2.8L IS http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=435795&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

Darn it ... blew the budget with just the lens.

Well, there is the f4 non-IS version of the 70-200L (which people at http://www.photography-on-the.net with it love) for $544 after rebate - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=183198&is=USA&addedTroughType=search Here's a link to a "post your best" thread for that 70-200 f4L lens on POTN - http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=142739&70-200 (you can find that sort of thread for many lenses on the thread forum).

Oh, that and a $659 XT and you're at... $1203.00

With the 20D and that lens you're at $1563.00

Good luck.

 

[law guy]

So I went ahead and bought the Nikon D50 and two Nikkor Lenses (I didn't want off-brand lenses). The lenses (a regular 18-55 mm and a 70-300 mm) aren't anything super fancy, but they are lightyears ahead of the Minolta I have...

...I also bought a 133x Lexar 2 GB storage card and a monopod (for 100 bucks).

It's going to take me a while to get used to it, but the shots I took of some jumping horses today were vastly better than what I had taken before...

No longer do I need to feel guilty about ordering 8x10s for a customer because the resolution isn't high enough. I'm so excited!

I'll be starting a thread soon describing how I developed my photography business - inside the thread, I'll post some comparison shots between my old camera and my new camera.

For now, though, thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread (even Clix Pix, who's brutal honesty was much appreciated - albeit a bit harsh). Hopefully this thread helps others in a similar situation as myself!

Well I missed this in my first scan through the later pages - good to see you found a body and some lenses that you like. Also, I'm impressed that you've turned your iWeb site into a money making enterprise - nice work and I liked the site appearence. Enjoy the new camera!

LG

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I decided to spend $1500 on a DSLR.

So far I want a Sony Alpha because i have a couple of (consumer) telephoto lenses and filters and the remote around (seems to fit) . And i like the Minolta/Sony handling.

So my list is:

Sony A100 (body only) $899
Sigma Zoom Wide Angle 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Autofocus Lens $390
Sandisk 4GB Extreme III CompactFlash Card Price : $ 219.95
Sony Service Plan with Accidental Damage from Handling Protection (ADH) $109

That ends up at ~$1620 what is roughly in the budget.

Congrats on a great purchase for yourself.

My questions are:

Is the Sigma Zoom worth the extra money over the kit lens (SAL1870 DT18-70mm F3.5-5.6 Lens Features)?

Hard to say till we see some real world reviews of the Sony lens.

Do I need a 4GB card or is 2 GB enough? Do people always shoot in RAW or do they mostly JPEG and only once in a while RAW? Also, go for one 4GB card or two 2GB cards?

Think of it this way. When we were all shooting film - we would get prints and negatives back when we sent it in for processing. Now when you had both in hand you could get further prints from both. But there was much more a lab could do with a negative (RAW in digital speak) verses from a print (JPEG in digital speak).

But in the digital age, being able to shoot in both gives us the best of both worlds. So IMO the 4GB would be a good starter option, with a second 4gb card to be a back up down the road.

 

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Hey I recently updated my website, so the link in the original post was incorrect.

Sorry about that...here's the new link:

web.mac.com/c.peters06

 

[form]

I would prefer smaller cards myself, on the grounds that when a card has to be formatted as fat32 - as anything over 2gb DOES - it loses a little performance speed. Not a ton, but when you're paying so much for fast flash memory, you probably want the fastest performance you can get.

I wouldn't buy anything over 2gb. But that's me.