Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I have $1000 for a DSLR camera body
- Thread starter bchamorro
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
D90 please!
Going to check them out today and probably make the purchase on friday (waiting for some funds).
First of all, I'm not angry, I'm rebutting a seemingly inaccurate statement with facts:
Nikon actually compares more than favorably, their consumer kit lenses bundled with consumer DSLR bodies have, until very recently been regarded as generally better than Canon's, but Canon is now equaling them. Their consumer lenses compare quite favorably, and their professional lenses generally compare very well- in fact, the latest two Nikon Perspective Control (T/S) lenses filled in the only real arguable difference between the two company's lines- and that's with a niche product.) and the newest nano-coated optics are superb- so perhaps you can quantify what exactly you mean by "can't even compare?"
Please re-read the post. The issue at hand, pun intended, is the feeling of solidity, not the size of the camera. Nikons, to me, feel sturdier. Canons -- particularly the Rebel mentioned by the OP -- feel plasticky. I made no correlation between "feel" and image quality, so you're on your own there, too.
Please re-read the post. The issue at hand, pun intended, is the feeling of solidity, not the size of the camera. Nikons, to me, feel sturdier. Canons -- particularly the Rebel mentioned by the OP -- feel plasticky. I made no correlation between "feel" and image quality, so you're on your own there, too.
The Rebel series are indeed small and lightweight, which is not bad at all for a person with small hands. The XS is also small and lightweight. The 40D is large and quite heavy, so is the new 50D, and the rest of Canon Cameras. Hold a 40D or 50D camera in your hands and tell me if these don't "feel" solid. In fact, I have both a XT and a 40D, and the latter feels extremely solid and heavy when compared to the XT. A larger camera is not only heavier because of the added amount of plastic (all cameras have plastics) over a smaller one. The XT is made of plastic, and the 40D has a metallic frame surrounded by plastic, which makes it much heavier.
Lens availability, not lens quality. Lens selection, not lens quality. I believe I also stated in that post (or some previous post) that I'm not anti-Nikon and that I appreciate everything they're doing and all of the recent innovations they've been introducing, but you continue to attack me as if I'm some Canon fanboy going "NIKON IS TeH SuCKZ0rz, K@Nn0n FTW!"
Let's all just calm down.
@Edge Here. The 135 f/2L is #$%^#$% fantastic. Now please stop jumping on me for not using the word you'd prefer.
Just a few observations:
- The best lens for you main subject costs more than you entire budget. That 70-200 f/2.8 would be the first choice but it's out of your budget.
- Which such static subjects you don't need a fancy expensive dSLR body.
- Concider buying a used lens. You can pick up a good Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for as low as $450 if you can use the push/pull version and for $650 if you want the slightly newer one. Both have absolute top of the line optics.
- The Nikon D80 has recently come down in price. In terms of image quality it is nearly identical to any sub $1K body. At $570 it is currently the best deal on the market.
- You are going to need a tripod for the subjects you list. Budget for one now
Think about the full SYSTEM. Eventually you will own a dSLR body, a few lenses and liky a speedlight (flash) and then you replace the body and trade some lenses. The SLR system will live much, much longer than any of it's parts. My Nikon SLR system is more then 20 years old and I do use some 20+ year old lenses with the new digital body.
Nikon D90 with Nikkor 18-200 VR lens is nearly exactly $1700, will perform will in a huge range of distances, has image stabilization, shoots very high quality stills, and has a first ever HD video record mode. Just my thoughts after researching my first DSLR exhaustively the last month. (My budget is MUCH smaller than yours, so I'm going with the D40, the kit lens, and a second lens to be determined later - either the 55-200 VR or the 18-135 if I decide I don't need the long lens or the 18-200 VR if I win the lotto).
C'mon guys! It's obvious that the Pentax DA series lenses have the "superior quality" over any lens, including L lenses. *Pshh* the L must stand for LOSER LENS
C'mon guys! It's obvious that the Pentax DA series lenses have the "superior quality" over any lens, including L lenses. *Pshh* the L must stand for LOSER LENS
I always thought it stood for Lovely, but it's actually for a French Meaning, 'Le Red Ring'.
I'm a Canon guy, but I've said this for years; both Canon and Nikon are the top of the field, but the other players are catching up quickly. I shoot Canon cause it's what I managed to buy first (Original Rebel). I own two L lenses and the images they can produce when I get lucky are just beautiful, plenty incredible for my novice standards.
One thing I like about L lenses is the standard they have across the bar; they all have USM Focusing, and top-quality glass. Some throw in IS and that's the end of the acronyms. When you see the Red Ring, or see it labeled as an L, you know it top. I get confused by Nikkor lenses, it seems that some have 3-4 acronyms attached and I still don't know what one signifies their 'superior' glass. It's all just a personal preference for me though; both Canon and Nikon can deliver professional quality.
TO THE OP: How close are you to the horses? Maybe you could just buy a rather inexpensive 50mm Prime (1.8 or 1.4) that will be crystal clear at f/8, and fall well within your budget. You could then buy a nice, top-notch 16-xx wide angle for your landscapes. Hopefully in a few weeks the new 5D mkII will be out, pushing the price of the current 5D down quite a bit, and that Full Frame would be perfect for your landscapes. My 17-40 is plenty wide on my 20D, but I'd love to go FF and get just that little bit more that I'm losing to a crop body.
RAW support
Take care when choosing the newest cameras, Apple typically doesn't support the RAW formats right away. See the compatiblilty list here:
http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/raw.html
Take care when choosing the newest cameras, Apple typically doesn't support the RAW formats right away. See the compatiblilty list here:
http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/raw.html
I'd go with the following in your shoes:
Nikon D90 18-105 VR kit - In stock at B&H for $1299 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/580422-REG/Nikon_25448_D90_SLR_Digital_Camera.html And that video mode is amazing - http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2008/08/chase-jarvis-raw-advance-testing-nikon.html
Nikon 70-300 VR - this is an excellent lens. See write up by Thom Hogan. http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm
It was long lens that Moose Peterson took with him on a recent trip to Hawaii - he's got some nice 70-300 shots in his blog (which you can use the search feature to find).http://www.moosenewsblog.com/
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_70_300mm_f_4_5_6G_AF_S_VR.html - in stock at B&H for $479
One from a 70-300 VR from up in the stands at Fenway - cropped in LR
Also from way up in the stands (under the over-hang) but less cropping:
Nikon D90 18-105 VR kit - In stock at B&H for $1299 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/580422-REG/Nikon_25448_D90_SLR_Digital_Camera.html And that video mode is amazing - http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2008/08/chase-jarvis-raw-advance-testing-nikon.html
Nikon 70-300 VR - this is an excellent lens. See write up by Thom Hogan. http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm
It was long lens that Moose Peterson took with him on a recent trip to Hawaii - he's got some nice 70-300 shots in his blog (which you can use the search feature to find).http://www.moosenewsblog.com/
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_70_300mm_f_4_5_6G_AF_S_VR.html - in stock at B&H for $479
One from a 70-300 VR from up in the stands at Fenway - cropped in LR
Also from way up in the stands (under the over-hang) but less cropping:
First of all, I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your statements, which you have yet to back up as anything other than opinion, and likely not one based in the real world from what I can tell. Second of all, I'm perfectly calm.
You have to be kidding- you *honestly* expected your original statement to be construed as about lens selection. That's got to be about the worst possible way of phrasing it one could possibly come up with. Once again though, let's see qualification...
On the current USA Webisites of each company, Canon (62 total) has exactly four more current production lenses than Nikon (58 total[0].) All the focal length overlap in both company's lines means that they are pretty-much on-par from wide to super-tele. If you add in the used market, then your average Nikon shooter has significantly more lenses available than your average Canon shooter- even factoring in the bodies that don't have compatibility with some older glass. Look in the current KEH catalog at what's available in good condition for F-mount cameras and tell me again about lens selection, because I'm coming to the conclusion that you don't have the experience to form an opinion[1]. Are you now going to claim that selection means "selection of lenses in a particular focal length?" "Selection of lenses with electronic image stabilization?"
That leaves us with pretty-much parity in terms of coverage (after all, your average shooter doesn't need 2 28mm-105mm zooms for instance, nor on the other hand do they need two 18-55s and a 17-55.) You can make arguments either way for niche shooters (Canon has both a f/2.8 and an f/4 version of the 70-200, Nikon only the 2.8, Nikon has the excellent 200-400VR...)
As far as availability goes, my preferred Nikon authorized dealer[2] can hand me anything except the new $9500 600/4VR and the new $7900 500/4VR, both of which are backordered at the moment, but I could have ordered either and had one by now if I'd needed it, and he still has an AF-S II 600 in stock. I was in playing with lenses a couple of weeks ago and if you add in the used lenses he's got probably around 85 or so different Nikkors in stock.
[0] I'm too tired to track down if the "only bundled with a camera" lenses are listed, but if they aren't there are at least two of those, maybe three.)
[1] For what it's worth, I own more medium format Mamiya cameras and lenses than Nikon mount cameras and lenses, and just four more Nikon lenses than Pentax 67 lenses if we don't count a Nikkor enlarging lens, but do count a couple of Sigma F-mount lenses and a 24mm Nikkor that I never shoot with.)
[2] Ace Photo, Sterling, VA.
You should really decide how much lens weight you're going to put on a tripod before selecting one- you can spend a lot of money getting to the tripod you end up with. You should also decide what sort of head you like, and budget for that seperately unless you're a fan of the pan/tilt heads that come on some tripods. Personally, if you like ballheads, I recommend the original Acratech Ultimate Ballhead, it's light, well-made, holds a fair amount of lens and is trivial to clean if you're out in the elements a lot. If I shot with smaller lenses, it'd be on the top of my tripod.
Also, consider what sort of conditions you have to travel in, so you can decide if you have to go to 4 leg sections or not- 3-section tripods are generally longer, don't do as well maneuvering in crowds, dense bush or packed in luggage, but are a lot more stable than 4-section ones. If you shoot a lot of panning movement, you might want to go straight to a gimballed head if you're not a big pan/tilt person, or you shoot things where you need quick tilt with your panning.
Weather and perference also change what you're willing to consider material-wise. Wood is different than aluminum or carbon fiber in the cold, in the wet, dealing with vibration on some surfaces, and leg lock types and gloves are also pretty big issues for some folks- but if your'e a set it and forget it tripod shooter, they matter much less than if you're more mobile.
If you shoot macro, or wildlife down low, then center columns (or lack thereof) matter too.
How tall you are, if you shoot standing or hunched, there are a lot of factors that go into choosing the right tripod- some people compromise on a lot, some people don't consider much at all- but if you might get a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 down the road, then you may want a bigger tripod, or you may want to split your tripod purchase into a "light" and "heavy" one...
The 80-200 f/4 is an AI-S lens, which won't meter with the D90 AFAICT and is MF only (or am I missing a version?) The 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D will meter and AF with the D90, is there a reason you'd recommend the f/4 version over the f/2.8 one? Most people prefer the push-pull f/2.8 lens in that focal lenght used from what I've seen.
You're correct sir, it was my opinion and you have proven that my opinion is false.
Nikon and Canon are both amazing companies and you can't go wrong with either.
Your talk of the lens dealer got me thinking, I really don't know of any top quality dealers in Atlanta, but I haven't really looked, either. Any suggestions from anyone? I'll have to look into that.
I also find the rebel cameras to feel "plastic and cheaply made" and have never enjoyed them, the control layout is a nightmare too. And I have small hands!
SLC
I think it's worth noting that "cheap feeling" plastic isn't always as fragile as it feels. Very few camera destroying falls are in the middle range where an eight of an inch of plastic is going ot make a big difference. (I can say this now because I just renewed my camera insurance policy yesterday!) If the Digital Rebel series had an inordinate failure rate, you can be sure it'd be all over the Internet.
No, cheap feeling doesn't mean anything, but then again, a cheap feeling car may never break down, either. I'd still rather have one that feels like it's high quality.
Anyway, today's plastics are as strong as most metals, or even stronger in some cases. It's all perception. It's hard to market a plastic camera as being better than a metal camera because they've been marketing the plastic cameras as cheap, low-end products for so long now. It's the same with expensive wines. Expensive wines always come in a bottle a few ounces heavier than cheap wine. The extra weight gives the wine a feel of quality when you pick up the bottle.....
Anyway, tripods: Get the Manfrotto 190XProB. It's a great balance of size, weight, strength, etc. Get a suitable head for the weight you want to carry. I have a Mag Fiber head (that I never wanted) because I got the two as part of a very nice package.
Great legs, and good head.
Anyway, today's plastics are as strong as most metals, or even stronger in some cases. It's all perception. It's hard to market a plastic camera as being better than a metal camera because they've been marketing the plastic cameras as cheap, low-end products for so long now. It's the same with expensive wines. Expensive wines always come in a bottle a few ounces heavier than cheap wine. The extra weight gives the wine a feel of quality when you pick up the bottle.....
Anyway, tripods: Get the Manfrotto 190XProB. It's a great balance of size, weight, strength, etc. Get a suitable head for the weight you want to carry. I have a Mag Fiber head (that I never wanted) because I got the two as part of a very nice package.
Great legs, and good head.
No objections there, I've not heard a lot of stories about Rebel's cracking or having other major quality issues. But I still have a problem with the feel of the camera, it just doesn't inspire confidence in the durability of the camera to me. I'd be worried about using it in certain settings, maybe those worries would be unfounded, but I'd still be wary of it.
SLC