Which entry level DSLR to get?

[aphex]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Is the Canon XTi's viewfinder really that big of a difference compared to the Nikon? Sorry for all the noob questions, I'm just breaking into the hobby and I just want to make sure I'm spending my money well.

I've held and XTi to one eye, and a Nikon D80 to the other. Side by Side, the difference is profound.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
For non-medium format, I'm a little worried. Canon, by using FF, is giving itself more room to grow. FF by its sheer size just gives more room to pack pixels and new technology. APS-C sensors just seem like they're going to be reaching a performance ceiling in terms of noise, resolution, etc. Once they reach that ceiling, they're going to need god to change the laws of physics to keep going up.

fixed

seems like there is very little added information between 8 and 10 mp. of course, that's just a 25% increase in resolution. but i bet most lenses aren't sharp enough to tell a difference with. maybe if you make a poster sized image.

and canon doing FF is a pro-oriented loss-leader strategy. keep the pros happy and you'll sell more consumer bodies/lenses.

lol

There is definitely a difference between 8MP and 12MP though, and even more when you're talking 16MP FF. At 12MP FF though you'll really be showing off the flaws of your lens. 10MP... not so much. I personally don't see this megappixel race slowing down anytime soon. The companies have managed to dumb down the consumers just a bit too much IMO... I don't think many of them will understand when they hear that the sensor is outresolving the lens.

I personally think Canon will move FF into the consumer market. Once they've taxed APS-C for all it's worth, they can just start plopping in FF sensors, which they will be in an excellent condition to do because they:

1. Already have a lot of experience with FF sensors, and they manufacture them themselves, which they may be able to eventually do cheaply.

2. The vast majority of their lenses are already FF compatible, unlike Olympus and Nikon and Pentax which IMO are sorta digging themselves into a hole by staying with APS-C and smaller and taking their lenses with them.

3. FF sensors have a lot of room to grow.

So where does it end? Why stop at FF? Why not go to MF? Then LF?
IMO, even if 10MP is the most APS can do, it's more than sufficient.
Pros can use FF or MF if they need, but few would be willing to fork out the extra cash.
APS is a sweet spot for digital, mostly for the reasons elfenix stated above.

 

[soydios]

Remember, the cardinal rule of DSLRs is that "you don't buy a camera body, you buy into the lens family." Both Nikon and Canon both have excellent lenses and camera bodies. It is not advised to invest in two lens families; pick one.

I have the Nikon D50 (~$650 with kit lens), and I would have to say that it's your best bang-for-your buck. Plus, the fact that it works with my 30-year-old lenses, and just about every single Nikkor 35mm or DX lens ever made, is a huge plus for me. By that same token, do NOT get the D40. The D40 is a high-end consumer camera, because it does not have the aforementioned decades-spanning compatability with the Nikkor lens family, because it doesn't have an integrated focus motor (the focus motor must be in the lens, such as with 35mm -IF lenses or DX AF-S lenses). I consider the D50 to be prosumer (consumer price point, some professional features). My D50 setup, purchased off Amazon.com, totaled $1050 about two months ago, and included the following: 18-55mm kit lens, 55-200mm kit lens, 2GB Sandisk UltraII SD card, 2 UV filters, 1 circular polarizing filter, 1 equipment bag, and an extra battery.

For a mid-range to start you off, I would go with the Canon 400D (EOS Digital Rebel XTi; ~$1000 with kit lens). It's a fantastic camera.

To start at high-mid-range, I would get the Nikon D80 (~$1200 with kit lens). It's just about as high as the prosumer DSLRs go. Almost all of its features are directly off the D2Xs and the D200. The Canon EOS 30D is also in this price bracket.

For high-end, I would go with the Nikon D200 (~$1200 body only, ~$2000 with a good carry lens). It's essentially a D2Xs that's been shrunk a bit, and lost a few fringe features in the process.

Professional grade would be the Nikon D2Xs and the Canon EOS 1Ds MkII. These cameras cost ~$5000 for the body alone, and it's really a shame to put a kit lens on it once you get into this price bracket.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: soydios
Remember, the cardinal rule of DSLRs is that "you don't buy a camera body, you buy into the lens family." Both Nikon and Canon both have excellent lenses and camera bodies. It is not advised to invest in two lens families; pick one.

I have the Nikon D50 (~$650 with kit lens), and I would have to say that it's your best bang-for-your buck. Plus, the fact that it works with my 30-year-old lenses, and just about every single Nikkor 35mm or DX lens ever made, is a huge plus for me. By that same token, do NOT get the D40. The D40 is a high-end consumer camera, because it does not have the aforementioned decades-spanning compatability with the Nikkor lens family, because it doesn't have an integrated focus motor (the focus motor must be in the lens, such as with 35mm -IF lenses or DX AF-S lenses). I consider the D50 to be prosumer (consumer price point, some professional features). My D50 setup, purchased off Amazon.com, totaled $1050 about two months ago, and included the following: 18-55mm kit lens, 55-200mm kit lens, 2GB Sandisk UltraII SD card, 2 UV filters, 1 circular polarizing filter, 1 equipment bag, and an extra battery.

For a mid-range to start you off, I would go with the Canon 400D (EOS Digital Rebel XTi; ~$1000 with kit lens). It's a fantastic camera.

To start at high-mid-range, I would get the Nikon D80 (~$1200 with kit lens). It's just about as high as the prosumer DSLRs go. Almost all of its features are directly off the D2Xs and the D200. The Canon EOS 30D is also in this price bracket.

For high-end, I would go with the Nikon D200 (~$1200 body only, ~$2000 with a good carry lens). It's essentially a D2Xs that's been shrunk a bit, and lost a few fringe features in the process.

Professional grade would be the Nikon D2Xs and the Canon EOS 1Ds MkII. These cameras cost ~$5000 for the body alone, and it's really a shame to put a kit lens on it once you get into this price bracket.

So you chose Nikon for the selection of lenses, but yet you ended up using two consumer zooms.
Pentax has the same two lenses you are using.

 

[soydios]

I have a pair of 30-year-old Nikkor primes (one 50mm, one 135mm, one 2x teleconverter) from my dad's Nikkormat FT (http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfol...archives/highres/slr/nikomat/ft_i.jpg). The geometry of the Nikon F-mount has not changed in thirty years. Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, the lenses do not work with the light meter, and are obviously not autofocus. But damn, that Nikkor 50mm produces some awesome portraits.

I plan to build up a decent collection of Nikon/Nikkor lenses and accessories over the next, oh, thirty to forty years. For example, my next camera spending splurge will be: Adobe Photoshop CS2, Adobe Lightroom, a Nikon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR lens, and a Nikon SB-800 speedlight. After that, I'll start picking up some primes, probably the 35mm, 50mm, and 105mm primes.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
So where does it end? Why stop at FF? Why not go to MF? Then LF?
IMO, even if 10MP is the most APS can do, it's more than sufficient.
Pros can use FF or MF if they need, but few would be willing to fork out the extra cash.
APS is a sweet spot for digital, mostly for the reasons elfenix stated above.

MF and LF are completely different animals from FF. It stops when you have to abandon your current family of lenses to get to the next level. It ends at FF because no regular SLR lenses can cover past FF. Canon can't just simply "upgrade" their current cameras to larger than FF sensors because that'd simply be rediculous. No one can.

I'm sure APS-C will always be "sufficient," but by keeping FF, Canon will be insuring that it will always be much more than just sufficient. FF gives Canon better opportunites to create better sensors with higher resolution, better noise qualities (ex. imagine useable ISO6400 while APS-C is wallowing in ISO1600), more resolution for cropping, larger and brighter viewfinders than even the best APS-C, greater dynamic range (more realistic and true-to-life photos), and continued support from professional photographers around the world who don't want to just settle for "sufficient." By sticking with FF Canon is ensuring that it will be able to stay #1 in performance by its sheer ability to grow.

Is it going to be cost effective? It might... the next FF camera that Canon comes out with in a year might be sub-$2K, and the one after that in two years may be sub-$1.5K. At this time APS-C might be at its performance limit, but not so with FF. Once FF performance starts edging into APS-C price...

IS and weathersealing and dust vibration, all those mechanical things, are easy to add anytime, but you can't fight physics. IF APS-C reaches its limit, and it's not good enough to compete with FF, there will be trouble. Of course, all of this is moot if APS-C has the ability to do like 24MP and ISO6400, but from many accounts it seems like APS-C is already starting to reach a very real limit. I don't know about you, but I'm not content with just sitting around with a 10MP sensor, ok ISO1600, and pretty bad dynamic range. If there is a chance of having a great leap in performance, I want to be there.

On a completely random though it would be interesting if there was a complete split altogether into four camera and lens categories, APS-C with their special APS-C lenses, FF with their special FF lenses, MF with their MF lenses, and LF with their LF lenses.

 

[Slap]

What is a decent relatively inexpensive flash for the XTi? Since I got the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, should I still get the Canon 50mm 1.8?

 

[glutenberg]

Hey Slap, now that you have your XTi, do you have any comments about it?

 

[alfa147x]

I just bought an XTI and i love it. my friend who is a pro photographer who uses Nikons like my camera more than i do!

 

[ElFenix]

why would the dynamic range of a bigger sensor using the same tech be greater?


i don't doubt that *eventually* we'll see FF sensors in the $1500 to $2000 market (especially once nikon gets into it, they'll have to eventually if they want to continue to be a viable alternative for professionals). i don't think they'll ever go much below that. but APS-C sensors are going to far outsell FF for the rest of eternity.

 

[Slap]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Hey Slap, now that you have your XTi, do you have any comments about it?

Still hasn't arrived. I tried one at a local store but ordered online to save some money. Basically used B&H for everything.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: alfa147x
I just bought an XTI and i love it. my friend who is a pro photographer who uses Nikons like my camera more than i do!

Did he have any major complaints about the viewfinder being dim to the point that it's difficult to use?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
why would the dynamic range of a bigger sensor using the same tech be greater?

i don't doubt that *eventually* we'll see FF sensors in the $1500 to $2000 market (especially once nikon gets into it, they'll have to eventually if they want to continue to be a viable alternative for professionals). i don't think they'll ever go much below that. but APS-C sensors are going to far outsell FF for the rest of eternity.

If you have two sensors using the exact same tech, one FF and one APS-C, they will have the same dynamic range and noise characteristics, BUT the APS-C's resolution will be far lower than the FF's, 2.52x lower to be exact. This means that if you use the same tech on a APS-C as on a 12MP FF sensor, the resolution of the APS-C will only be 4.76MP.

FF is 24x36mm = 864mm^2

APS-C is 15.1 x 22.7 = 342.77mm^2

864/342 = 2.52

If both APS-C and FF used the same tech, FF will always have 2.52x the resolution as APS-C. If APS-C wants to close this resolution gap, it will have to make their photo sites smaller, which will result in noisier images, lower usable high ISO, and lower dynamic range.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Pentax K100D without a doubt.

If I were going Pentax, then I'd wait for some test results/reviews from the K10D, which is supposed to be a decent upgrade on the 100D/110D.

edit: So drpeview has their review up and it seems to be a decent camera.
Pros:
Good image quality and detail (in RAW), good metering, dust and weather resistant, in-camera shake reduction, convenient controls, good continuous shooting (they knock it for not being totally consistent...but at 3.1fps average, who cares?).

Cons:
Its performance at high isos is not as good as either the D80 or 30D (which could be extrapolated out to the XTi as well). It also doesn't go up as high (1600 max instead of 3200). Lastly, you need to shoot RAW and convert via 3rd party software. The in-camera software as well as the supplied conversion software have weak algorithms that lack in edge clarity/sharpness...they'll produce the same result.

 

[novasatori]

there is a K10D review on dpreview now, looks like an amazing camera

too bad I'm a Canon user.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: novasatori
there is a K10D review on dpreview now, looks like an amazing camera

too bad I'm a Canon user.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/

Heh, ditto. I can take solace in the fact that Canon is still at the top in terms of high iso performace and overall image quality (imo).

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Slap
What is a decent relatively inexpensive flash for the XTi? Since I got the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, should I still get the Canon 50mm 1.8?

http://photonotes.org/reviews/sigma-ef-500-super/
http://www.adorama.com/SG500EOSDG.html?...chinfo=ef%20500%20dg%20super&item_no=4

The flash unit in this review is great. Dunno if there's been any updated models for ETTL-II, but it's still a wonderful flash unit for the price.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Pentax K100D without a doubt.

If I were going Pentax, then I'd wait for some test results/reviews from the K10D, which is supposed to be a decent upgrade on the 100D/110D.

edit: So drpeview has their review up and it seems to be a decent camera.
Pros:
Good image quality and detail (in RAW), good metering, dust and weather resistant, in-camera shake reduction, convenient controls, good continuous shooting (they knock it for not being totally consistent...but at 3.1fps average, who cares?).

Cons:
Its performance at high isos is not as good as either the D80 or 30D (which could be extrapolated out to the XTi as well). It also doesn't go up as high (1600 max instead of 3200). Lastly, you need to shoot RAW and convert via 3rd party software. The in-camera software as well as the supplied conversion software have weak algorithms that lack in edge clarity/sharpness...they'll produce the same result.

The high ISO looks worse than the D80 at a first glance, until you realize how much detail is lost from the D80's strong noise reduction algorithm.