'Cheap' Digital SLR? HELP!

**haydukelives** · 12-16-2006, 08:01 PM

they will tell you everything. and remember, they were making great cameras 6 mos ago and they are cheaper now

**The Kids Are Alright** · 12-18-2006, 01:34 AM

watch out for those cheap sites, they sell em so cheap cause they dont come with anything, battery, lense, anything. its just the camera body itself. be careful, do your research

**hop** · 12-18-2006, 01:45 AM

I purchased a Nikon D200 this summer and probably shot 10,000+++ pics with it this fall using the old 300f4, 80-200f2.8, and DX 18-70 kit lens. I also shot the Canon 10D and 20D mostly with a 28-80 and 100-400ISf? and compared images every night as part of the photo team on the ship.

90% of the time the photo crew liked the Nikon colors and sharpness more than the Canon images. It could have been the lenses or the bodies; I'm not sure what the deal was, but there was a definite quality to the Nikon images that the Canon images lacked. All cameras were set on mostly default settings and no fancy filters were used... nothing to give any particular cameras unfair advantages, and compared images were often taken of the same subject at the same time while standing right next to each other.

**JeffreyJim** · 12-18-2006, 11:10 AM

Good to hear. I def. want to pick up another lens, not sure what to get, but it can't cost too much (picking up a theme here..ha)

I found a 70-200mm lens...forgot the f stop but it was good enough for ski photos...It was around 160. Yeah, way cheap I know but it should be good enough for me to keep playing around. I don't think the kit 18-55MM lens will really be ideal for ski photos but i'll find out as soon as finals are over...

**bio-smear** · 12-18-2006, 01:05 PM

The people that always complain about shutter lag on point & shoots don't seem to understand the concept of holding the shutter release halfway down to make the autofocus active. By doing this, the autofocus will actively keep refocusing, and when you depress the shutter release the rest of the way, the photo is taken instantly. The top SLR's work the same way. While the shutter lag on SLR's is better, it's not so much better that it's going to make you a good action photographer if you suck with a P&S.

I see people all the time trying to shoot action with a P&S who just point and stab the shutter release all the way down. The camera's AF activates and then the photo is taken, yeah there's some lag because they didn't activate the autofocus prior to framing and panning their subject. Then they're like "this camera sucks!"

I have a EOS 30D and a Powershot A80. The shutter lag difference between them is negligible if I use the above method.

**lemon boy** · 12-18-2006, 01:24 PM

x2, besides you're just fooling yourself if you think you're gonna capture THE MOMENT by firing off a picture. Continuous Mode people!

**summit** · 12-18-2006, 01:36 PM

Agreed!!

**1000-oaks** · 12-19-2006, 10:16 PM

I shoot with a Canon 1D Mk II N (just got it), a 5D, and a 20D backup (now for sale).

About a year ago my brother picked up a Rebel XT (350) on my recommendation after reading the specs, but since I played with one today I feel that I gave him some bad advice. The XT certainly isn't a bad camera, but for the same money he could have bought a used 20D - which IMHO is a LOT more camera. After using the XT today, I think maybe even a used 10D would be a better choice. I didn't like the autofocus, not nearly as much control, it felt flimsy, etc.

So my $.02 is get a used 20D body for $700 and a used Tamron 28-75 for $250 and skip the Rebel line, even the new one. I used the Tamron lens on my 5D today doing studio shots for a magazine, and the images came out fantastic. You can usually find both items on the buy&sell board at www.fredmiranda.com, used 20D's especially as so many guys have upgraded to the 5D.

**1000-oaks** · 12-19-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by hop

90% of the time the photo crew liked the Nikon colors and sharpness more than the Canon images. It could have been the lenses or the bodies; I'm not sure what the deal was, but there was a definite quality to the Nikon images that the Canon images lacked. All cameras were set on mostly default settings and no fancy filters were used... nothing to give any particular cameras unfair advantages, and compared images were often taken of the same subject at the same time while standing right next to each other.

Camera manufacturer's have different philosophies regarding "optimum" default settings. They often crank up sharpness and saturation for consumer cameras; everybody on the block likes sharp, vivid photos and won't be doing any post-processing. Pro bodies tend to have little or no default sharpening and more bland color saturation, so that the photographer has more to work with in post-processing. Unless you shoot RAW, once the camera over-processes an image there's less a professional user can do to adjust and massage it.

If you don't want to post-process at all, go into the settings and bump up the sharpening and saturation until you like what you see, it makes a huge difference. Also make sure the Canon camera wasn't set to Adobe RGB (designed for printing), images will look very flat and bland on a monitor compared to images in standard-for-web sRGB color space.