Help Choosing First SLR

[Martin C]

Shambolic, I agree, those are probably the wrong weights.

The D70s as well as the K100D both have 6 megapixels, versus the XTi which as 10 mexapixels. Will this make a difference if photo quality?

 

[Abstract]

^^No, but it will make a difference if you were to print. If you want professional level prints, the best you can do with a D50 or K100D is something like an A4 sized page, or lets 10" on it's longest side. A 10 MP Canon XTi will allow you to make a print with a length that's around 3" longer, or a print that's 13" on its longest side.

If you don't honestly plan on printing such large photos, then MP makes little difference. If you plan on cropping a lot, then it might matter, but I tend not to crop my photos to super small size.
I've made 8"x 6" prints of my photos before, and they looked fantastic. Even the 4 MP photos taken with my Canon SD300 look great at 8"x6".

The Nikon D50 is 4.6 pounds. That seems quite heavy; maybe it is because I am coming from light Point and Shoots. The D70s however, is 3 pounds.

I know you want to make the right decision, but don't be such a monkey and go and pick up these cameras with your hands. The D50 is NOT 4.6 lbs unless you add a large lens to it. If you saw them in person, you'd realize that it's a non-factor. If you must know, the K100D is probably the heaviest, the D50 is 2nd, while the XTi is probably the lightest. On that note, their weight probably differs by no more than 0.3 lbs or so.

And I wouldn't consider the D70 over the D50 any day of the week. While both are 6 MP, the D50 has a newer, better sensor that produces less noise at high ISO. It's also smaller in size and has a nicer LCD screen. It also has the built-in help menu. All you need to do is press the ? button, and it'll tell you what the setting does. Very useful for new photographers.

If you're not going with a D80, go for a D50. Also consider the Pentax K100D and Canon XTi (if you really want this one). I'd rather recommend the Pentax K100D or even an older Canon 20D if you can find it.

If you like the lighter weight (and I agree that the pentax is quite portable, my dad is toting a K100D these days since I ordered the K10 for myself) then DON'T take the previous suggestion of purchasing the 18-200VR for the Nikon instead of the two separate lenses. That's a pretty big honkin' lens and makes the camera far less practical to cart around.

"Big honkin" lens? The 18-200 mm isn't that big, especially with the "One Lens to Rule Them All" rep that goes with it. It's definitely not too big to be practical. Its reputation is based around it's overall practicality!

 

[cube]

Here you have the weights, etc.

One of the good things of the K100D is that it takes AA batteries, but you can also put CR-V3: here.

 

[feelthefire]

I can't really think of any pro photographer who would subscribe to the "one lens to rule them all" philosophy and there's three other reasons that I don't think the lens is an appropriate suggestion for the poster who asked:

1) it costs about as much as the camera itself;
2) he's concerned about size and weight, and though it's small, to shrink it to a consumer size I doubt the lens is of a quality that justifies that price...
3) if a zoom of that focal length is that small, there were undoubtedly compromises made to shrink the assembly down to a "consumer friendly" size that mean you won't be happy with the pictures you actually take with the lens.

An "all-purpose" lens is a "no-purpose" lens. They do a lot of things, but none of them well. Any good photographer will tell you different lenses serve different purposes and situations and trying to jam them all into one is not only impractical, but compromises the quality you're spending so much money to get. An 18-200 that doesn't exhibit some kind of issue or compromise at the 6MP image level is a feat in itself, so expecting some issue is reasonable- and a reason I wouldn't approach the lens unless the only reason I was buying it was to say I had the spiffy new super-lens. To fit all that precision glass into a casing that small is not without inherent flaws. For $750, one could get a whole assembly of top notch SMC-A lenses for the Pentax K100D, including the 70-200 long zoom that is one of the most precision instruments Pentax ever issued. These would all without question turn out better images and probably be more useful overall for flexibility than the one big, compromise lens.

I hold firm that it's impractical and a compromise optically, when the kit 18-55 would serve most consumer purposes more than enough.

 

[Abstract]

1) You can't think of any pro photographer that has a "one lens" philosophy. Fortunately, he's not a pro photographer, so he can subscribe to this "one lens" train of thought. Getting other lenses to compliment it, and to be able to do things he can't do with the 18-200 mm is a possibility, but he'll always have that 18-200 mm VR to do his general shooting.

2) The 18-200 mm VR has distortion issues at both wideangle and telephoto range, as you would expect from this kind of lens. However, it's not THAT bad and not a deal-breaker, and it performs good enough for "pros" or "serious enthusiasts" recommend it to others, or own it themselves. You don't hear anything about similar lenses that came before it, or the similar lenses that were recently announced. They just aren't as good as this 18-200 mm VR. I suggest you read up on it, even here at MR, where some of the more experienced photographers have one.

I don't have one and don't plan on getting one, but only because I like fast lenses. My Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 takes sharp, fantastic photos, even wide open, and that's what I opted for instead.

 

[Martin C]

I am going to the store on Friday and holding and trying out the K100D, the XTi, and the D50. You guys have been quite helpful, and I appreciate the quick responses.

 

[feelthefire]

1) You can't think of any pro photographer that has a "one lens" philosophy. Fortunately, he's not a pro photographer, so he can subscribe to this "one lens" train of thought. Getting other lenses to compliment it, and to be able to do things he can't do with the 18-200 mm is a possibility, but he'll always have that 18-200 mm VR to do his general shooting.

2) The 18-200 mm VR has distortion issues at both wideangle and telephoto range, as you would expect from this kind of lens. However, it's not THAT bad and not a deal-breaker, and it performs good enough for "pros" or "serious enthusiasts" recommend it to others, or own it themselves. You don't hear anything about similar lenses that came before it, or the similar lenses that were recently announced. They just aren't as good as this 18-200 mm VR. I suggest you read up on it, even here at MR, where some of the more experienced photographers have one.

I don't have one and don't plan on getting one, but only because I like fast lenses. My Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 takes sharp, fantastic photos, even wide open, and that's what I opted for instead.

For $750, I would expect a lens that doesn't distort anything. That's an insane price for a lens with that kind of flaw.

Just because he's not a pro doesn't mean he should shell out more than the cost of a camera body for a lens. That's rediculous when it comes with a perfectly suitable kit lens.

It's not really an issue for this poster since he's considering only one camera that could use it, but for the record, I've heard of several consumer zooms like this that are supposed to be the "do all" lens, I have yet to find one that is comparable in quality to a more narrow range film lens, and I won't be buying one or encouraging anyone to buy one until they can develop one that doesn't compromise. There are hundreds of lenses out there that don't make those compromises, and while they may be unwieldy, old, or out of fashion, they're also better made and better to use in the long term.

I find it interesting that it seems to be a consequence of the digital realm that everyone must have the newest, fanciest, most technological gadget no matter the cost or the actual quality. While this was true of the film era, there was a much greater line between true quality and the "newest things" back then.

I personally think that $750 could be better invested in a SERIES of lenses that serve a collection of purposes, instead of being confined to one, superfancy, super expensive lens. That's all. I have no interest in learning much more about this lens because it doesn't fit either of my Pentax DSLRs and I already have equivalent lenses for said cameras.

 

[sjl]

For $750, I would expect a lens that doesn't distort anything. That's an insane price for a lens with that kind of flaw.

Then, to be blunt, you're living in a fantasy world. Lens design is inherently an art of compromise. If you design a lens for one particular characteristic - maybe sharpness, for example - you will end up compromising some other characteristic.

Rectilinear lenses are not natural. The closest thing to a "natural" lens you can buy is a fisheye, which has barrel distortion like nothing else. It's the brain that gives us the ability to perceive straight lines, right angles, and so on. The eye is a sphere. The retina is a surface on that sphere. The lens at the front of the eye is a spherical lens (which can focus perfectly on a spherical surface such as the retina). A camera, on the other hand, has a flat sensor, and camera lenses are designed for that.

I defy you to find any lens, at any price, at a focal length of less than 30mm (35mm equivalent), that has no distortion whatsoever. No barrel distortion, no pincushion distortion, no chromatic aberration, focusing that's as sharp as a tack, etc. It must also be at least f/5.6 or faster, to allow for autofocus to work.

To make matters even more fun, we're talking here about a zoom lens. The compromises inherent in designing zoom lenses are even more severe than those for designing primes. There's a reason why a given zoom lens costs more than an equivalent prime (eg: a 70-200mm f/2.8 compared with a 200mm f/2.8).

On the topic of "one lens fits all" - I know of (although not personally) at least one serious photographer who uses Canon's 28-300mm as his walkaround lens. He doesn't bother with anything else. He's willing to sacrifice a bit of image quality - which most people will never notice anyway - in return for the incredible flexibility that lens gives him. Granted, that's a lens that costs over four thousand Australian dollars (RRP), but still - the point stands.

I freely admit to being a gearhead in some respects myself. I'd love nothing better than to plonk down the cash on a 5D, the 24-70mm f/2.8, the 70-200mm f/2.8L, the 85mm f/1.2L, the 15mm fisheye, and probably a few others I can't remember offhand. But I know the gear I have - 20D, 17-85mm, 100-400mm, and 50mm f/1.8 - does the job I need it to; the gear lust is just that - gear lust (at least until I can afford an underwater housing, and even then, it's still gear lust.) Does the 17-85mm have distortions? Yes. Every shot I take with it, I can see barrel distortion, especially at the wide end. Does it bother me? No, not really - and that's what matters.

Rant mode off.

Now, can the $US750 be better spent on a series of lenses? Possibly. That depends on whether the photographer is willing to accept one set of compromises (changing lens to suit the shot) over another set of compromises (the distortions inherent in a zoom lens). All anybody on this forum can do is educate the would-be purchaser on what those compromises are, and let the individual decide on what works for him/her.

 

[cube]

The 18-200 VR is supported by DxO (but still not for the D80), so the distortion is not really important.

 

[Abstract]

For $750, I would expect a lens that doesn't distort anything. That's an insane price for a lens with that kind of flaw.

....There are hundreds of lenses out there that don't make those compromises, and while they may be unwieldy, old, or out of fashion, they're also better made and better to use in the long term.

These lenses you have that don't many any compromises.........are they all primes? In fact, "that kind of flaw" is very common, even for primes, especially wideangle ones, so you're buying into that kind of flaw without even knowing it. Any zoom lens with a decent amount of zoom capability, lets say at least 3x, is making some sort of compromise. Fast f/1.4 or f/1.8 lenses have a rather low contrast..........I still own a 50 mm f/1.8 prime. It's damn good, too.

I find it interesting that it seems to be a consequence of the digital realm that everyone must have the newest, fanciest, most technological gadget no matter the cost or the actual quality. While this was true of the film era, there was a much greater line between true quality and the "newest things" back then.

Fanciest? It's a lens that goes from 18-200 mm, that also happens to perform rather well. That's why people want it. You don't see other 18-200 mm lenses, or any similar 24-105 mm VR or IS lenses having such high demand despite covering a wide focal range, do you? It covers a very wide range, and it's also quite sharp, hence the reason why it's popular, even amongst (some) pros who don't usually take a lot of compromises.

If Nikon had made an 18-200 mm f/4-5.6 VR lens that took soft photos even at f/8 or so, who'd want it?

I have no interest in learning much more about this lens because it doesn't fit either of my Pentax DSLRs and I already have equivalent lenses for said cameras.

That basically says it all. You don't have to learn more if you don't want to. That's fine.



@sjl: Thanks. You saved me a lot of explaining when it came to compromises. I was going to write about compromises regarding barrel and pincushion in almost all zoom lenses that cover the 18-35 mm territory, but you did it so much better.

 

[Piarco]

I did a LOT of research before getting my D70s. Firstly getting my head around the megapixel myth took a while (we all love bigger numbers, so it was tricky 6MP v 8MP and all that) and then understanding how the different models worked... but it all came down to having the cameras in my hand.

The 350D was far to small for me. My little finger was below the grip and it just felt uncomfortable. The D70s felt right straight away. Decision made.
When the 400D came out I felt a little gutted in that I'd bought the D70s only weeks before, but again on holding one it was just too small. And the D80 didn't actually seem to be much of an improvment, so no regrets there.

I loves my D70s. I've mastered most aspects of it now (even full manual!!! ) but will still be going on a Nikon specific DSLR course in January, followed by a photoshop course after that.
Don't be coloured by opinions though - get to a shop, see what feels right in your hands, and if there is more than one then let the minute details and opinions sway you.

 

[Killyp]

I've got a D50, and it takes amazing pictures.

http://killyp.deviantart.com

Those are some of my pictures, all taken with the D50

I guess the D70 is just a better version of the D50...

 

[sjl]

@sjl: Thanks. You saved me a lot of explaining when it came to compromises. I was going to write about compromises regarding barrel and pincushion in almost all zoom lenses that cover the 18-35 mm territory, but you did it so much better.

Why thank you.

Here's one way of looking at it. Take a good quality telephoto lens (eg: 50mm on a crop body, or maybe an 85mm - doesn't really matter.) Find a subject that covers a fairly wide angle of view, such that it would be covered by (say) a 24mm lens (35mm equivalent FOV). Ideally, something that has two towers, going straight up, fairly well separated, will illustrate the principle very clearly. Position yourself squarely in the middle, so that the centre of the subject is the closest point to you, out of the entire subject. Take a series of photos with the telephoto lens, take them back to the computer, and stitch them together in a panoramic shot.

You'll find that there's "bowing" going on - the two towers will lean in towards each other, for example. This is inherent in the optics of the situation: the base of the tower is closer to you, so will be further out on the field of view, whilst the top is further away, so will be closer in. That's the nature of barrel distortion. A wide angle lens can go some of the way to correct this barrel distortion, but not all of the way. That's why I said (effectively) "you won't find a wide angle lens with no distortion" - not a prime, and definitely not a zoom. All the lens designer can do, if anything, is modify the distortion so it's not objectionable.

It's one of the reasons why fisheye lenses work so well - they don't attempt to correct this natural distortion inherent in a wide field of view.

It's much easier to correct distortion of this kind with a telephoto lens, but even telephoto zoom lenses involve compromises in their design. They just aren't as obvious.

 

[Martin C]

Since I am not in any rush to get a camera. I think I might consider waiting out for the Nikon D40 that was announced today.

 

[cube]

Why do you want to wait for the D40 instead of getting the D50 which is available now, not so crippled, and sells for less?

If you are considering these cameras you might just as well take a look at the K110D which is selling for $419 with kit lens (after rebate).

 

[Martin C]

Well, mainly because it is a newer camera and I am in no rush.

Where are you getting the K100D price for $419 after rebate?

 

[cube]

K110D

buydig, Beach Camera, and Abe's of Maine about the same price.

buydig and Beach Camera also have the $200 flash for the $100 rebate instead of $50.

 

[feelthefire]

The K110D is the same camera as the K100D, but without the shake reduction feature, hence the cheaper price. $420 with kit lens is a very reasonable price for someone wanting to get into the DSLR bit cheaply.

 

[Lewis22]

Hey,
looks like you have plenty of great advice here, I just thought i'd throw in my 2 cents.
I was in the same boat you are in right now. and ended up getting the K100D from Amazon.
I am so happy with my camera.

Here is what i see as advantages,
- SD cards. cheaper than CF (I got a 1GB 3-pack for $60 after rebate from Best Buy, and having 3 cards is nice for organization while out photographing)
- Shake Reduction. I dont notice it, but thats a good thing, i only get blurry pictures when I want to.
-Large LCD. so nice for reviewing photographs
-Kit lens is just Great.

Here are my concerns with my set up.
-AutoFocus seems to take longer than i'd hoped, esp. with action/moving subjects. (but this could be because it's my first DSLR and i dont know what to expect.)
-The kit lens is great! but i'd really like to have something longer (200/300) just in some situations.



Here are some things i think you should really consider getting at the same time as the purchase of your camera, because if you dont get them then, you will soon after.
-UV filter. for lens protection.(maybe other filters, for different effects)
-Camera case. for overall protection/organization.
-512+ memory card(s). esp. if you will be shooting in RAW. ( i can get close to 400 per 1GB card shooting in the highest quality JPEG)
-Rechargable batteries. either the CR-V3 (i think) or 4 AA's. I'd suggest at least 2 quality sets(i'm currently running 2 sets of rechargable AA's and wish i had more from time to time)
-Tripod. I dont have one yetmyself, but from what i understand they make a world of difference
-Possibly a longer lens.

I ended up choosing the K100D because of my budget, but it turned out great. One other that i was looking at, that you havent said you've looked at is the Sony alpha. it was out of my price range a little but seemed like it would have been nice to check out alittle more closely.

Thats all i can think of at the time, if i come up with more i'll let you know.
If you have any questions for me, about the K100D, or otherwise, just let me know (PM)

Lewis22


*oh, and a word of caution. be sure to search for reviews of the site you plan to buy from PRIOR to taking any action.* dont get sucked in by amazing prices like i almost did. and make sure there are pleny of true reviews, not just "the camera i ordered from **** is really nice"

 

[islandman]

I've been using Canon for several years now, and I shoot weddings with the 30D and 5D. I have used Nikon, but when it was time to invest, I went with Canon and haven't looked back. I would not recommend another brand besides Canon or Nikon.

In my opinion, people decide whether they like Canon or Nikon after they've played (seriously) with cameras from both companies for at least half-hour. Nikon was fine for me, but when I played with Canon, that was the deal-breaker.

 

[Clix Pix]

Take a look at Nikon's D80, which is fairly small and lightweight, with 10MP, or wait for the new D40 if weight is a primary concern for you. More important than the weight, though, is what the camera will do for you and as time goes on you will find that you become accustomed to whatever your camera weighs. When I first got my D70 a couple years ago it felt massive to me in comparson to the Coolpixes I'd been toting around previously. Now the D200 feels quite comfortable to me -- ditto for longer, heavier lenses.

First thing you need to consider is what exactly you want to shoot with this camera, and how you'll be using it under what conditions. If you're looking at simply shooting stuff around home and snapshots of the family, that is different than shooting extreme closeups and macros or needing fast lenses for sports photography.

Good luck!

 

[Irish Dave]

Hello,

Okay, so I am pretty much a noob when it comes to SLR cameras and I was hoping for some insight on which camera I should choose. I would be using the camera for just about anything. From everyday shots, to landscapes, to sports.

I have searched the net and have come up with a list of candidates:
Nikon D70s
Canon Digital Rebel XTi
Pentax K100D

If you have any other suggestions or wish to state your opinion on which camera I should purchase, comments are appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Hi,
As a Canon user for the past 40 years and a photography tutor for 23 years, I highly recommend the Canon Rebel XTi. In the U.K. the Canon Rebel XTi is sold as the 400D. The only problem you are likely to find is the small size of the camera. Normally that would automatically rule out this model but if you fit the battery grip the camera feels totally different. With the battery grip fitted the camera is a dream to use. Image quality is second to none.

I have handled and used the Nikon, but found the autofocus system poor in low light. The Canon had no such problems.

Sorry I have no experience of the Pental 100D.

Cheers
Dave

 

[Martin C]

Wow this is such great information guys! Right now, I have ruled it down to the K100D and the D40. I think I will wait and see the reviews of the D40 before I make a choice.