Recommended Set-up, Decent Budget

[law guy]

I like the 30D option ($1,189 at BH http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=423708&is=REG&addedTroughType=search) with the following initial lenses:

70-200 f2.8L IS ($1600 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=449226&is=USA&addedTroughType=search)

(a lighter weight option with Image Stabilization in high-end weather sealed L glass would be new the 70-200 f4L IS - only a few hundred less than the 2.8 at around $1200)
24-105 f4L IS (general purpose, wonderful lens [my walk around], around $1200) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search(you can get the excellent 24-70 f.28L for $1099 at BH right now with the psaug code; I used one for two full weeks and really liked it - larger for general walk-around, a little more conspicuous and I have more use for the IS on the 24-105 with the f4 rather than 2.8 with no IS)

A shot from my EOS 30D and 24-105 f4L IS combination (a simple drive-way shot on a very cloudy day):

16-35 f2.8L or the 17-40 f4L ($1200 or $630)
That set-up: $5,200 or so (with the 16-35 figured in the price).

All full-frame glass so you could move to a 16.7 MP FF EOS-1Ds MK II should you have the $6500 in the future (or the MK III if rumors are to be believed!) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=448459&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

A link re: SI photographer Walter Iooss who shot this SI swimsuit shoot using a 1Ds Mk two and two lenses - the 24-70 and 70-200 IS mentioned above. http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/sharapova/index.htm

A shot of Walter waist deep in the ocean with the sealed set-up:

My experience is that you'll shoot well over 1,000 shots with a single battery on the 30D. I fill up my 2 GB Sandisk cards SEVERAL times over shooting RAW + JPEG fine before ever depleting a battery - and that's with the extra drain of Image Stabilization always on for the lenses as well.

A step-up set-up would be the above lenses with a 8.5 FPS 1.3x EOS-1D MkIIn at $3,464 using the B&H "psaug" discount code (type it into the search field and you'll get the latest discounts) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=448460&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

An interesting link re: pro bodies - in this case a Canon 1 series - by photojournalist David Honl on his weblog http://lexardigital.typepad.com/davidhonl/2006/05/choosing_pro_or.html. The body survived when David was attacked covering a demonstration in Turkey.

"8.5 fps are maintained during maximum bursts of 48 shots (22 shots in RAW). Bursts are first recorded to the cameras internal memory to ensure maximum speed and then transferred to memory cards for storage."

That body with the three lenses would push you north of $7,000, which you could bring down a bit by going with the 17-40 f4L.

That set-up doesn't include a tripod or a good flash like the 580 EX, $359 using the BH discount psaug code again: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=449291&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

Good luck.

LG

 

[ThunderLounge]

What about media? Anybody have any big preference?

I've always been partial and seemed to have had the best luck with sandisk, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're the only option out there. For example the 8G seagate looks tempting, but since I haven't used any of their CF cards I'm only able to guess.

That information looks good law, but I'm still torn between Canon and Nikon in terms of their offerings. However, sj makes a very good point. Since they both offer comparable systams, and excellent glass, it very well could come down to feel. I think I'll make a side trip tomorrow and see what I can come up with.

 

[shiv]

I think a major factor that sticks out in my mind is that you want fast focusing? for fast sports like car racing?
Canon, IMO has faster focusing than Nikon in general. I shoot D200 and D70s. My dad shoots 20D and I work at a camera store. So I get to take out cameras and test them out. I definately find this to be the case about Canon. The D200 vs. D70s focusing speed had only been increased marginally (cam 900 to cam 1000, vs. cam 200 in the D2X). In consideration to the overall lineup, I would say that for action shooting, go with a 30D.It can shoot up to 5 fps, which is quite fast. Plus you can retain fast shutterspeeds in low light (maybe nightime trackshots) situations without feeling quilty about cranking up the ISO. (c/o the CMOS sensor)

From the money you saved on the body, get some high quality fast focusing, fast (aperture). Remember, the major investment and quality is not in the body, but in the lenses. Quality of images come predominanently from the glass not the camera. Personally, to stay in budget and to have the ability to take amazing shots, I would get the middle-priced body and the top quality glass. You'll be much more satisfied than maybe getting the highest end camera you can afford, and then buying some lower quality glass.

 

[ThunderLounge]

Shiv, can't say I disagree one bit.

I'd definitely be getting L's if I go with Canon.

Speaking of Canon, I'm considerind the 30D, 5D, or the 1D Mk II.

Yeah, it would probably hit the budget up a little bit, but in the end it would be worth it.

Time is on my side on this one, so at least I can make an informed decision. I just really hate to waste a wad of cash, you know?

Here's a thought to go along with media and accessories. What about UV filters? I personally haven't used them, as I really hadn't been to a level where I would consider it. However with a ton of the shots being during the day, afternoon to be specific, does anyone think they would be worth using? Their not expensive, so it isn't a cost issue, but more of a "will they make a big enough quality difference to be worth carrying around" type deal.

 

[law guy]

Shiv, can't say I disagree one bit.

I'd definitely be getting L's if I go with Canon.

Speaking of Canon, I'm considerind the 30D, 5D, or the 1D Mk II.

Yeah, it would probably hit the budget up a little bit, but in the end it would be worth it.

Time is on my side on this one, so at least I can make an informed decision. I just really hate to waste a wad of cash, you know?

Here's a thought to go along with media and accessories. What about UV filters? I personally haven't used them, as I really hadn't been to a level where I would consider it. However with a ton of the shots being during the day, afternoon to be specific, does anyone think they would be worth using? Their not expensive, so it isn't a cost issue, but more of a "will they make a big enough quality difference to be worth carrying around" type deal.

If you use good lenses, say Canon L series, I think the critical thing is to use very good filters if you decide to use filters at all. I use B+W UV - $130 or so for 77mm (which is going to be the size for most L glass - the 16-35 f2.8L, the 17-40 f4L, the 24-105 f4L IS, the 24-70 f2.8L, and the 70-200 f2.8 IS that I mentioned above are all 77mm). L lenses are weather sealed and Canon recommends using a filter to complete the seal - i.e. protect the lens glass itself. I've shot "naked" but once I shot with the B+W and confirmed that my images weren't degraded, I welcomed the extra protection.

 

[ThunderLounge]

If you use good lenses, say Canon L series, I think the critical thing is to use very good filters if you decide to use filters at all. I use B+W UV - $130 or so for 77mm (which is going to be the size for most L glass - the 16-35 f2.8L, the 17-40 f4L, the 24-105 f4L IS, the 24-70 f2.8L, and the 70-200 f2.8 IS that I mentioned above are all 77mm). L lenses are weather sealed and Canon recommends using a filter to complete the seal - i.e. protect the lens glass itself. I've shot "naked" but once I shot with the B+W and confirmed that my images weren't degraded, I welcomed the extra protection.

Thanks for the filter info. Like I was saying it makes sense, but I haven't used filters before.

As for lenses, they will most definitely be the high end.

I "might" consider a couple "less expensive" macro lenses to play around with, but the serious stuff will definitely be the top end. To me, the lenses are the easier decision part.

The biggest decision will be in the body, and it's capabilities. For this, I'm still tossed up between Nikon and Canon. Both seem very capable, so it seems to be coming down to more reading about what people think that actually own these bodies. Not to mention if new ones are released next week. But taking that into account, I'd still probably end up with one of the current models. Mainly from a history standpoint more than anything. I'd just hate to be in a semi-isolated area, and end up getting screwed because of a missed glitch in a new model.

For FPS, shutter speed, etc, all seem to be capable of handling the diversity of shots I'll be exposed to, which is a good thing.

Back to "reviews", I tend to take them with a grain of salt. However, it definitely seems I'm in the right ballpark for the models. All 5 I'm currently considering have very passionate reviews from their owners.

 

[shiv]

With Nikon, the only prob I have is the autofocus, as I was mentioning. I sometimes do sports events for the University paper here in the city. I used my D70s and 80-200AF-D f/2.8 lens. The lens itself for quality of images is impeccable in many ways. However, focusing was an issue:

EG. For long jump shots, I would stand maybe about 10 feet away from the sand pit. I had camera on continuous focus, and set to burst shots. The lighting was quite dim, but I kept the camera to f/2.8 and shutter speed to about 1/100, iso around 640 (being braveconfused. Well, to keep it short, I would hardly have any shots in focus. I couldn't follow the person down the line. The lens would just focus way too slow to catch on and stay focused. So, I ended up just keeping the lens ready pre-focused on a specific spot and firing away when the jumper came into the shot. Sometimes I would then just manual focus. THAT was even faster than the autofocusing. Sad case, I'm not sure if this is fully representative, but it has been my experience.

I've used my dad's 20d with his 170-500 sigma lens for skateboarding shots, and that was much faster than the focusing on my previously mentioned combination.

With that mentioned, I still decided to pick up a D200, and I don't regret it at all, but fast focusing was not my major criteria for the shots that I do most often.

If you are really set to go Nikon:

The Nikkor 70-200 VR f/2.8 (and even the 80-200 AF-S 2.8) IS faster in focusing than the 80-200 AF-D f/2.8, however it still doesnt make up fully for the slow focusing cam of the d70s or the d200. If you really want Nikon, and want fast focusing, plus even CMOS, you might want to look at the D2Xs, or maybe even D2Hs. (especially if you are looking at a Mark II or even 5D)

 

[ThunderLounge]

shiv, that was a great summary.

Since we can all be honest here, we're not talking about image quality with any of these SLR's. All have proven to take great pics.

Your mention of focus speed is great. and having to manually focus shots for hundreds of laps would get old, real quick. Sure enough that all the shots won't be of a car running 200mph, but still that is an important capability to have.

 

[Clix Pix]

The Nikkor 70-200 VR f/2.8 (and even the 80-200 AF-S 2.8) IS faster in focusing than the 80-200 AF-D f/2.8, however it still doesnt make up fully for the slow focusing cam of the d70s or the d200. If you really want Nikon, and want fast focusing, plus even CMOS, you might want to look at the D2Xs, or maybe even D2Hs. (especially if you are looking at a Mark II or even 5D)

The focusing of the D200 is significantly faster than the D70/D70s, but I quite agree that for truly fast focusing, a D2X or the new D2Xs is your best bet, or the D2Hs. An advantage of the D2Hs is the smaller file sizes.

 

[beavo451]

With Nikon, the only prob I have is the autofocus, as I was mentioning. I sometimes do sports events for the University paper here in the city. I used my D70s and 80-200AF-D f/2.8 lens. The lens itself for quality of images is impeccable in many ways. However, focusing was an issue:

Part of the problem is that the lens is not an AF-S lens. With AF-S, the focus speed is pretty similar with all current bodies. Differences become more distince in lower light levels and regular AF lenses. The more expensive cameras have stronger motors to drive the AD.

 

[sjl]

The biggest decision will be in the body, and it's capabilities. For this, I'm still tossed up between Nikon and Canon. Both seem very capable, so it seems to be coming down to more reading about what people think that actually own these bodies. Not to mention if new ones are released next week.

That being the case, I can't emphasise this enough: go to the store you'll buy the camera from, and hold it in your hands. Feel is a very subjective thing; what feels good to me may feel wrong to you.

But taking that into account, I'd still probably end up with one of the current models. Mainly from a history standpoint more than anything. I'd just hate to be in a semi-isolated area, and end up getting screwed because of a missed glitch in a new model.

I would suggest that any glitches in a new model are more likely than not going to be worked out with a firmware update. The mechanical side of things is pretty much a mature form of engineering, so that leaves software, and software means firmware in cameras ... meaning it can be updated at any time. (eg: The most important new features in the 30D - the 1/3 ISO stops, and the variable burst speed [3/5 fps] - could just as easily have been put into the 20D via a firmware update.)

I don't think you'll be disappointed with any of the bodies you're looking at.

As for filters: B+W are good; so are the top of the line Hoya (Pro 1). Can't comment on any other brand. Don't cheap out on them, though!

Good luck.

 

[Abstract]

Part of the problem is that the lens is not an AF-S lens. With AF-S, the focus speed is pretty similar with all current bodies. Differences become more distince in lower light levels and regular AF lenses. The more expensive cameras have stronger motors to drive the AD.

Yeah, most of the 80-200 mm f/2.8 models out there are not AF-S with the Silent Wave Motor. I don't think so, anyway. The 80-200 mm has been around for awhile, and so if you buy one now, you should get one with the SWM, which will make a huge difference. The 70-200 mm is supposed to be fast.

Canon's are supposed to be fast as well.

 

[ThunderLounge]

Sorry y'all, didn't mean to ignore.

Been a little busy with some other work in relation to the overall project for this. Well, that and pushing buttons on the MBP @ Photokina thread, but it's all fun and games.

I did get a chance to hold all 5 of the models in consideration. Like that helped. LOL

It did narrow it down a bit, but not much. The Canon's felt fine, and I preferred the feel of the 1D Mark IIn overall. It just had that sturdy brick s**thouse feel. Then again, none of them felt cheap either. The Nikon's felt good too, although with a longer lens the D200 and 30D seemed a little... I dunno, odd?

I've also considered wear and tear, as the eventual body selected will need to hold up for at least 2 years, with usage on at least 38-40, 3-4 day ventures a year. More most likely, but they wouldn't be long events. With what seems an average shutter life of about 100k shots, that's good. That should hold it out for 2 years anyway, if I shoot about 1000 images a pop.

I'm still not sure on flash cards though. I know you get what you pay for, but at the same time there is also a line where you cross quality into paying for a name. But that's probably the least of my worries. Beats me. I can imagine that I'll probably need to have 16G-20G worth of chips though, so I'm not running back to the trailer to download all the time.


@ Law...

I just noticed the driveway image, but that's a nice shot.


Any of these bodies will produce with quality glass, so I think the biggest factor will come down to being able to shoot targets that are approaching 200mph. lol

If it can do that, then anything slower shouldn't be an issue.

It does look like I'll most likely end up pushing a little more into the cam set-up though. Not an issue, really. Just move a little bit from the video set-up over to the cam since that will be used more than the video. To be honest, we might not even shoot video. I can't see it being used for anything other than a couple of clips from the weekend, and then maybe a "year in review" type DVD or something. Not that that would be bad, but in the long run it might end up being less of a desire than anything else.

However, the photo shoots will definitely be a front runner.