advice on new DSLR camera... PLEASE :)

[bearbo]

i'm sorry... i was sleepy when i posted the last one, which isn't very clear... let me try again..

f/3.5, would this aperture be too small if i want to capture something fast, like a sport move?

and since the 18-135mm lens, at 135 the aperture is f/5.6 min, would this be too small if i want to capture something far (considering any little movement can make the picture blury from a distance, and too small probably mean i have to have longer shutter speed (or would sensitivity compensate for this?)...

thanks a bunch!

also can someone suggest me a few lenses that's more or less for normal all around usage? Thanks again!

 

[Rickay726]

just buy a Canon Digital rebel Xt

best camera for a beginner with dslr, i have one and absolutly love it.

it has basically everything your looking for.

however af and mf are usually on the lens not the camera

you shud definitly go wiht the digital rebel xt

 

[bearbo]

just buy a Canon Digital rebel Xt

best camera for a beginner with dslr, i have one and absolutly love it.

it has basically everything your looking for.

however af and mf are usually on the lens not the camera

you shud definitly go wiht the digital rebel xt

thanks for the suggestion... what advantage does this have over the nikon counterparts?

 

[dogbone]

f/3.5, would this aperture be too small if i want to capture something fast, like a sport move?

and since the 18-135mm lens, at 135 the aperture is f/5.6 min, would this be too small if i want to capture something far (considering any little movement can make the picture blury from a distance, and too small probably mean i have to have longer shutter speed (or would sensitivity compensate for this?)...

thanks a bunch!

also can someone suggest me a few lenses that's more or less for normal all around usage? Thanks again!

Bearbo, what you need to do is understand how shutter speed/ aperture and focal length work with regards to available light and depth of field. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what camera you get. If you understand the basics only then will you get a meaningful answer to your questions. It all depends on what you want to achieve.

Whether ƒ3.5 is a large enough aperture with regards to available light depends on how much light there is or how much light you can get to your sensor using a combination of available light or fill flash or faster film (ie more sensitive sensor, but this introduces more noise)

Whether ƒ3.5 (or ƒ5.6) is small enough or large enough to get the amount of focus your require depends on how much depth of field you want, doesn't it.

Once you come to understand how the different choices you can make with regards to ƒ stop, shutter speed, focal lenth and ISO rating affect and are related to each other and depth of field, you will *understand* what you need.

just buy a Canon Digital rebel Xt...

it has basically everything your looking for.

But how do you know he's looking for a camera that feels too small and plasticy with annoying buttons that are basically just shortcuts to the menu?

 

[freebooter]

I don't have a DSLR, but I've looked into the matter as I almost went that route, so I'll throw in my two cents.

One thing Nikon has going for it that relatively new 18-200mm VR lens. Check out the reviews, which seem to indicate it's the all-in-one lens of choice, at the moment. I think, paired with a D50 or D80, it would be a fantastic amateur general purpose/sports setup. I may be wrong, but I don't think Canon has such a useful lens.

[ sidebar: Personally, after much internal debate I bought a Sony DSC R1 instead of a Nikon for a variety of reasons. It's great as a street and nature camera, but not for sports. ]

 

[Abstract]

thanks for the suggestion... what advantage does this have over the nikon counterparts?

None. In terms of photo quality, I really don't think there will be much of a difference. If you look at the RAW photo comparisons between the new D80 and new Canon 400D, they're exactly the same, right down to the colours the two sensors picked up to the sharpness of the photos.

The lenses are around the same quality as well, although the selection differs. If you want a good general lens to own with a WIDE aperture so that you can shoot in darker conditions or when things move quickly, I'm going to suggest a lens that goes from 24-70, 28-70, 24-75, 28-75 or whatever, at f/2.8. It's a fast lens at f/2.8, and that's constant at every focal length. There's no such thing as an 18-200 mm f/2.8, so there's no point looking for a single lens that does everything. That's why DSLRs are so great..........it's modular, meaning you can choose a lens based on your use.

You can get a Nikon or Canon 24-70 mm (or something similar to this) f/2.8, but they're pricey. A much cheaper option is a Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 macro lens (which is excellent and what I have), and a Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 macro lens (possibly the sharpest of them all IF you get a good copy of the lens, as Tamron has some Quality Control issues with this lens).

That's my suggestion. Either that, or the many 18-50 mm, 18-55, 17-55, 16-50 mm f/2.8 lenses out there. The 16-50 mm (or 55 mm?) f/2.8 is a Tokina, I believe, and sounds very very interesting because it shoots at quite a wide angle.

If you need to shoot longer than that for sports but still don't want to spend too much money, then Canon makes a 70-200 mm f/4, Nikon makes an 80-200 mm f/2.8, and Sigma now has a 50-150 mm f/2.8 that is also small in size, making it more practical to carry around! I don't think it's in stores yet, so it's hard to say much about it.

 

[bearbo]

Bearbo, what you need to do is understand how shutter speed/ aperture and focal length work with regards to available light and depth of field. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what camera you get. If you understand the basics only then will you get a meaningful answer to your questions. It all depends on what you want to achieve.

Whether ƒ3.5 is a large enough aperture with regards to available light depends on how much light there is or how much light you can get to your sensor using a combination of available light or fill flash or faster film (ie more sensitive sensor, but this introduces more noise)

Whether ƒ3.5 (or ƒ5.6) is small enough or large enough to get the amount of focus your require depends on how much depth of field you want, doesn't it.

Once you come to understand how the different choices you can make with regards to ƒ stop, shutter speed, focal lenth and ISO rating affect and are related to each other and depth of field, you will *understand* what you need.

thanks... i think i do have some basic understanding of how those factors work together theoretically, what i dont have is the experience...
i understand that at different lighting, it's the combination of aperture and shutter speed that makes the photo not too bright or dark (fine, that doesn't exactly demonstrate much of knowledge there, does it... )

my point is, i think camera, much like any other electronic, that in certain aspect of the specifications, between one value and another (very closed) value doesn't make too much practical differences (at least for some people), for instance, in a mbp, since i dont take my mbp out all the time, whether the battery life is 3:30 or 3:45 doesn't make any difference... however in some other aspect of the same specification, the 15 second DOES make an difference... so my previous question about the aperture is that... would the shutter speed difference caused by f/2.8 and f/3.5 be significant? because if so, i wouldn't mind paying more for a f/2.8 than the one that's somehow always in a kit with the d80.

sorry about the rambling writing... i thank everyone so much for the helps!

 

[Yakamoto]

Ok, everyone here has a valid point. It's all just a matter of brand preference. My personal pic is the Pentax K10D http://www.pentax.ca/digital/digital_slr/k10d/index.php.

 

[dogbone]

my point is, i think camera, much like any other electronic, that in certain aspect of the specifications, between one value and another (very closed) value doesn't make too much practical differences (at least for some people), for instance, in a mbp, since i dont take my mbp out all the time, whether the battery life is 3:30 or 3:45 doesn't make any difference... however in some other aspect of the same specification, the 15 second DOES make an difference... so my previous question about the aperture is that... would the shutter speed difference caused by f/2.8 and f/3.5 be significant? because if so, i wouldn't mind paying more for a f/2.8 than the one that's somehow always in a kit with the d80.

Yes, I see what you mean but it's not that straightforward. You see you might ask for example is 1/15 sec exposure too long to hand hold a 50mm lens, for some people that is way too difficult yet some people can hand hold a 50mm lens at 1/4 sec.

If you understand apertures a bit as you say you do then you will realise that the difference between ƒ2.8 and ƒ3.5 is only a half a stop , (2.8 x 2.8= 7.84, 3.5 x 3.5 = 12.25) you can understand what a half stop means in terms of having an effect on shutter speed, not very much at all. And also on depth of field, not very much. BUT some people may consider it to make a significant difference. Also remember that the maximum aperture on an SLR will affect how bright the viewfinder is. Whether it's bright enough is very much a personal opinion.

The hair splitting decisions that you are asking others to help you with are too personal to be of much use to you.

 

[bearbo]

Yes, I see what you mean but it's not that straightforward. You see you might ask for example is 1/15 sec exposure too long to hand hold a 50mm lens, for some people that is way too difficult yet some people can hand hold a 50mm lens at 1/4 sec.

If you understand apertures a bit as you say you do then you will realise that the difference between ƒ2.8 and ƒ3.5 is only a half a stop , (2.8 x 2.8= 7.84, 3.5 x 3.5 = 12.25) you can understand what a half stop means in terms of having an effect on shutter speed, not very much at all. And also on depth of field, not very much. BUT some people may consider it to make a significant difference. Also remember that the maximum aperture on an SLR will affect how bright the viewfinder is. Whether it's bright enough is very much a personal opinion.

The hair splitting decisions that you are asking others to help you with are too personal to be of much use to you.

okay, that's a great relief then, since it essentially comes down to just personal preferences instead of ACTUAL technical significance...

i've been reading dpreview, but i dont see that they have lens review/comparison... is there a site where i can get such information? (i guess i'll do w/ amazon, but hoping for something more specific)

i'm taking suggestion for lens now

 

[beavo451]

so my previous question about the aperture is that... would the shutter speed difference caused by f/2.8 and f/3.5 be significant? because if so, i wouldn't mind paying more for a f/2.8 than the one that's somehow always in a kit with the d80.

Aperture has nothing to do with the camera! It is dependent on the lens only.

The lens that is "somehow always" in a kit with the D80 is there because it is the packaged "kit" lens that Nikon decided to pair with the camera. You can buy a D80 body only and buy a lens seperatedly. 2.8 to 3.5 is nearly a full stop difference (it is more of a 2/3-stop difference).

Example:
If you are shooting sports in low light, the 2.8 will let you shoot at 1/500 to stop action rather than 1/250. Of course, if it is during sunny daytime, it doesn't really matter because you will have more than enough light.

Problem is that 2.8 and faster lenses are considerably more expensive, bigger, and heavier. Just look at the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DX and compare it to the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

 

[Jay42]

Having been in your same situation, moving from film to digital SLR cameras with around $1000 to spend, I can tell you that the lens is FAR more important than the body. It is easy to get sucked into the little differences between camera bodies, but the truth is, they all take very good pictures these days.

My advice would be to either go with the Rebel XT if you want to go with Canon or the D50 if you want to go with Nikon. These two brands will give you more flexibility in the future. I bought a used Rebel XT for $500 and had enough left for a 80-200 f/2.8 L. Let me tell you, it was a good decision. If you want to get into photography, especially sports, you will quickly learn the importance of good glass. You will kick yourself if you spend a lot of money and only end up with a cheap lens that doesn't have the reach or speed to shoot what you want to.

 

[extraextra]

i've been reading dpreview, but i dont see that they have lens review/comparison... is there a site where i can get such information? (i guess i'll do w/ amazon, but hoping for something more specific)

Lens sites:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews

 

[bearbo]

Aperture has nothing to do with the camera! It is dependent on the lens only.

The lens that is "somehow always" in a kit with the D80 is there because it is the packaged "kit" lens that Nikon decided to pair with the camera. You can buy a D80 body only and buy a lens seperatedly. 2.8 to 3.5 is nearly a full stop difference (it is more of a 2/3-stop difference).

Example:
If you are shooting sports in low light, the 2.8 will let you shoot at 1/500 to stop action rather than 1/250. Of course, if it is during sunny daytime, it doesn't really matter because you will have more than enough light.

Problem is that 2.8 and faster lenses are considerably more expensive, bigger, and heavier. Just look at the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DX and compare it to the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

i appreciate the information, and i'd also appreciate if you read my post more carefully... for the past i dont know how long, i have been asking about lenses, i'm pretty much decided on the d80, so yes, i know good and well the aperture does NOT depend on the camera, and it depend on the lens..

i dont want to sound like an ass and ask for help, but i dont want people to tell me that i completely have no idea what i'm talking about either.. i have lot to learn, but i AM learning

i know i can get a body only and lens separately, however the d80 is generally 1000, and the aforementioned 18-135 is 400, but when they were in a kit, it's 1300, so that's something i take into consideration... i DON'T know how much difference the f/3.5 is making, if it's not THAT much, i might consider saving that 100 dollars... there's another 18-55mm lens, but the largest aperture is f/3.5 as well.

 

[bearbo]

is this Nikkor 18-135mm lens a good all-around general usage lens?

i know i've been making a fuss about the diff between f/2.8 and f/3.5... but it doesn't look like i can afford any f/2.8... (but if you know any f/2.8 that's relatively inexpensive, even if it means it's only from 18-60ish, i'd love to know)

 

[Abstract]

Well that f/3.5 is only available at 18 mm. That's a wide aperture, I think. However, if you're shooting at 135 mm, the f/5.6 is considered quite slow unless you're shooting in daylight only. While the f/3.5 is nice, you're not going to be able to shoot at f/3.5 unless you're always shooting at 18 mm, which won't be possible.

...i DON'T know how much difference the f/3.5 is making, if it's not THAT much, i might consider saving that 100 dollars... there's another 18-55mm lens, but the largest aperture is f/3.5 as well.

I don't know if I'm completely on your ban/invisible list so maybe you can't even read my posts, and if you can't, everybody else can ignore this.

I did suggest one of the many 18-50/18-55/17-55 mm lenses out there. Nikon and all the major 3rd party lens makers now make a lens like this, but f/2.8. The 3rd party lens makers are a lot cheaper than the Nikon option if you're worried about the cost of an f/2.8 lens.

I mean, my Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 macro is probably around $350-400 USD, and it's fantastic. The Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 is sharp as a tack, and better than some of the Canon options out there in that focal length range (not the 17-40 mm, I realize). That's how you know it's good.

You have options. Many people are just fine without a constant f/2.8 lens, and if you need to shoot under low light or in a situation where you want background blur, then switch to a more suitable lens. There isn't a single lens that's perfect for every situation anyway.

 

[dogbone]

2.8 to 3.5 is nearly a full stop difference (it is more of a 2/3-stop difference).

...the 2.8 will let you shoot at 1/500 to stop action rather than 1/250.

No, the difference between ƒ2.8 and ƒ3.5 is not nearly a full stop at all. It is almost exactly a half stop. ƒ2.8 squared is almost 8 and ƒ4 squared is 16 so the half way point between 8 and 16 is the square root of 12 which is almost ƒ3.4

 

[beavo451]

i dont want to sound like an ass and ask for help, but i dont want people to tell me that i completely have no idea what i'm talking about either.. i have lot to learn, but i AM learning

i know i can get a body only and lens separately, however the d80 is generally 1000, and the aforementioned 18-135 is 400, but when they were in a kit, it's 1300, so that's something i take into consideration... i DON'T know how much difference the f/3.5 is making, if it's not THAT much, i might consider saving that 100 dollars... there's another 18-55mm lens, but the largest aperture is f/3.5 as well.

I apologize, but you keep on jumping from the body to lens and it sounds like you are associating the lens with the body as one combo.

Yes the lens and body combined sells for less than if you bought them seperately. It is for you to decide if you want a different lens. The kit lens is a good lens. Is it good enough for you? I can't tell you. Others and myself have described what it can't do regarding its aperture. The focal range is a versatile range. The image quality is pretty good. As a walk-around/general purpose lens, many have been using the 18-70mm DX and with the extra focal length, I imagine that the 18-135mm is just as good. It will probably have more distortion at the wide and telephoto ends.

 

[beavo451]

No, the difference between ƒ2.8 and ƒ3.5 is not nearly a full stop at all. It is almost exactly a half stop. ƒ2.8 squared is almost 8 and ƒ4 squared is 16 so the half way point between 8 and 16 is the square root of 12 which is almost ƒ3.4

Sorry for my incorrectness. I was basing this off of my experience shooting football at night. f/3.5 @ 1/250 -> f/2.8 @ 1/500. 1/250 -> 1/500 is 1 stop.

Here are the jumps in EV according to my camera

1-stop increments:
2.8 -> 4 -> 5.6

1/2-stop increments
2.8 -> 3.3 -> 4

1/3-stop increments
2.8 -> 3.2 -> 3.5 -> 4

Which equals 2/3 of a stop by my camera's calculations.

 

[bearbo]

cool thanks! great informations

i'll check out the 18-50/18-55/17-55 lenses that Abstract suggested

apology to beavo451 to sound proud

and i'll keep in mind with all the options you all gave me, and i'll keep you posted on what i choose

thanks!

 

[bearbo]

i was just reading on the canon XTi and its self cleaning sensors... how much dust is gonna get on there? aka how important is the dust reduction system?

i know the nikon has the software to do that, but i wouldn't want the dust to be all over the sensor by the end... is there some other way to clean it to that effect?

also is the software mac compatible (or is the software not important?) THanks!

 

[bearbo]

so i was talking to a pro photographer just now, who condamed what he called "off-brand" lens... he said they are just not as sharp, and they aren't well built...

what do you guys think, those of you who have used both nikkor and say, sigma ones, how does the sigma ones compare to the nikkor ones?

i mean, nikkor ones are really expensive, but does its quality justify the price?

 

[miloblithe]

Depends entirely on the specific lens. There are crap Nikkors. There are crap Sigmas. There are great Nikkors and great Sigmas. Look for reviews of a particular lens.

In general, of course, the Sigmas are worse. But that's not really the point if you're looking for a particular lens for a particular purpose.