WashabiS2K

i love my Canon 30D Rebel XT i need to come up with some money for some other lenses though, im still using the kit lens and have no clue about other lenses.

mmagic

sorry, i quoted the best since judging by his signature pictures he's no broke joke. $1500 budget will get you a body with a mediocre lens.

5D body is about $3K MSRP.

i personally find that people place too much emphasis on FPS. how often are you going to be rock n' rolling at full burst anyway? 90% of the people i see using DSLRs' are using them to take pictures of their cars, their pets, etc. things that arent moving very fast. ive seen maybe a handful that use them for action shots. and even then, rig shots and panning shots are all the rage right now anyway which negates the need for large fps capabilities.

SupermanZ11

Seeing that most people here are canon peeps thought I'd share my thoughts as a Nikon user....

Not saying that I know much about photography as well, but during my research, "pros" would say that 35mm still produces better picture quality over digital eventhough digital gives you results way quicker. To achieve 35mm results on digital, you're looking at a 20+ megapixel camera...moral of the story, don't underestimate your "old" 35mm.

With that being said, "pros" would recommend that if you have a nikon lenses, go with nikon dslrs for the sake that the lenses are interchangeable (unless your lenses are over 20 years old, you will have autofocus problems).

If you don't care about your old lenses, just about the only difference between canon and nikon is that generally canons are quicker, which is why most sports photographers use canons over nikons. Nikon on the other hand is more about the lenses which is why you don't see as many nikon cameras vs. canon lenses.

Since I am a Nikon person, I use the D80 is a great camera with the hard to find 18-200mm vr lens. If you want a quicker Nikon, then go with the D200 but that costs about $1500 body only. Even the D40 or D40x will do you just fine.

If you do go with a nikon camera, remember to include the 1.5x mag factor on a digital. If your lenses are not cracked, you'll get better value staying with a nikon.

If you're in the bay area, you may want to pay a visit to Keeble and Schucat photography in Palo Alto vs. asking people at Ritz for advice.

Hope that helps...

D'Andre

Eluded

Nikon might get you more bang for the buck

thejohnremus

Hmm,

well it looks like it's my turn to post a response


Speaking as a professional and someone who has worked with many professionals shooting everything all the way up to professional sports... I disagree that a "pro" would say to stick with a 35mm.
Picture quality (and definitely versatility) has been surpassed by digital. Speed is superior of course, and while they are still (and always will be) increasing megapixels - for the general user the megapixel race was over years ago.

Canon versus Nikon... you can debate this for hours... I will simply point out pixel quality. Having shot along side Nikon users both more (and some less) talented than myself AND personally editing images side by side from those events... I will say that image quality of a Canon is superior.
Canon's CMOS sensor does not heat up as quickly as Nikon's sensor and results is less noise in the photograph. I would say that Nikon's ISO1600 is equivalent to Canon's ISO800 or even 640 in some cases.


When it comes to general all around use the Rebel (if you stick with Canon) would suffice. However it would feel small and cheap/easy to break in someone as tall as you, Rick. Also, it doesn't meet the 5fps

Why would someone want 5fps over 3fps? Who cares, right? It's personal preference, and honestly, it's quite noticeable to not even have the option of shooting one photo as quickly right after the other. While you may not shoot the full 5 in one second, you can shoot faster bursts... make sense?

The 5D would be a completely bad choice for Rick. First, it's too expensive. While it's a good camera, $2,100 (not 3) is too much for just a body and the 30D is a much more versatile camera in my opinion. The 30D will be much sturdier and solid, the 1.6 crop factor is actually something preferred by many photographers - even for portrait/models. You'll only find it limiting in tight areas or for large family photos.

As for lenses.... as I've told everyone who's asked me so far... Nearly any lense will work "for what you want to do". A general lense will get you by through all your day to day stuff.
Hell, buy the kit lense and learn how to use it first. Everyone thinks they need to buy L glass lenses right off. That's like turning 16 and buying your S and the next week going and buying to CTSC cuz the car doesn't seem to be as quick as everyone else?
Make sense? I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, and I know many people here can actually afford top dollar lenses just because they prefer the best

The 24-105 will be better - however if your budget won't allow it, don't worry.
And definitely check out Sigma lenses as well. I've used many Sigma lenses and they're sturdy, and effective. Many pros also swear by them and use them along side their Canon L's.


Rick, go with what your own research tells you to go with. While Keeble and Shultz is fun to go to play around with gear - they're over priced.
Everyone's opinion will be completely different, and mine is different than many on here... But, I'm offering my two cents as someone who has shot with many types of equipment in alll different situations.
Good luck with whatever you decide to buy.

iceple

Thanks John! all the information i need to make my decision

Green Tea

and the circle jerk between canon and nikon fanboys begins. I prefer my polaroid one shot

s4play

Thanks to Jarod, John, Superman, mmagic , Vu, etc for all their comments...

I know there are a lot of resident photography experts here judgin by all the nice pics we get at each meet so I knew this was the place to ask....

I'm leaning towards the Canon too but my only big issue is I already have a huge assortment of Nikon lenses. Given this fact I'm thinking the Nikon D80 is a better choice for me?

here's the list of lenses I have right now (ALL MANUAL for 35mm Nikon)

1) Sigma 400mm, 1:5.6 (Telephoto lense)

2) Sigma 600mm, 1:8 (Mirror Telephoto lense)

3) Sigma 70-300mm, 1:4 - 5.6 (DL Macro lense)

4) Nikon 135mm, 1:2.8 (Portrait lense)

5) Nikon 50mm, 1:1.8 (Series E)


(What are the ideal uses for each of the above lenses? I didn't buy all of them as some were given to me by parents so sorry for the noob questions....)

So with that in mind should I pick up the Nikon D80S which I think at Ritz is on special for $999 (body only) plus like $100 for a basic A/F lense or get the Canon 30D which is about $1299 and with the ugpraded lense they have a special for $1499 and call it a day.

John, you bring up some good points and I don't necessarily need to have 5 fps but just thought faster is better for shooting moving targets? One thing I wanted to ask is do I need a tripod since I don't have such a steady hand usually...haha Thanks for the analogy with the CTSC as my mind is set on cars!

mmagic: I don't want to go all out as I still need lots of practice so thought the $1500 budget is more reasonable for a beginner....thanks for your input!


I hope all of this info is helpful too all the other newbie photographers as well since those point/shoot really show their limitations really fast after a while....


late,
rick

owenxguo

D80

yamo

Here's the price levels increasing in price if this helps:

Nikon D40
Canon XT (no longer in production)
Canon XTi / Nikon D40x
Nikon D80
Canon 30D
Nikon D200
Canon 5D

The prices seem to leap frog a lot. Also look out for rebates.
Earlier this year, you could have bought a Canon 5D for cheap if you bought a few lenses (Like $1.8K?)

And also crop sizes are all different.
Canon has 1.6x, 1.3x, full frame.
Nikon has DX (1.5x).
This will change the focal ranges for the lenses.