DSLR/Camera questions

[grapedrink]

howdy. so this isn't skiing related but i know there are some professional photographers and serious hobbiests kicking around so i'm hoping to get more usable/objective opinions here than on the various photo nerd forums. i've owned a bunch of p&s canon elphs, recently upgraded to an A710IS and really love the manual exposure controls, manual focus, and variable flash intensity. in fact i don't think i could go back to an 'auto' only camera.. but i also want prints that don't look like they were taken with a digital camera (know what i mean?), i want far less iso noise (my A710IS often has visible noise even at iso 80 in broad daylight), much better indoor/lowlight performance, and sharper/more detailed images, etc.. my friend has a nikon d70 and a canon sd500 and i was scrolling through the pictures on her computer and was shocked at the difference in quality, it was completely obvious which pictures were taken with the sd500 vs those taken with d70. i'm a strict hobbiest, no professional aspirations of any kind.. i mainly take landscape pictures, family pictures, touristy travelling photos, and would like to dabble in skiing action shots. as of yet i'm not into the whole taking pictures of flower petals and hummingbirds thing.

sorry for the long intro. so here's what i've figured out on my own: Nikon D80 w/ 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom lens. thats more money than i would care to spend but it seems to be a well regarded camera and lens. i'm also a big fan of getting it right the first time, the upgrade game usually ends up being a lot more expensive in the long run. i like the idea of the lens being an all in one solution that can handle most if not all of my needs.. less stuff to lug around, no lens switching, etc. on the canon side there is the 20D for around the same price or the 400D for $200 less, but would need to buy two lenses to do what the nikon superzoom does. dpreview says rebel xti is a bit sharper and has slightly better iso performance but past threads on here say to stay away from the rebel line and spend a little more money and get something better.. so how do the D80 and 20D stack up against each other? anything else worth considering in this price range? advice, thoughts, opinions?? thanks

[yesIsaidyes]

The XTi is better than the 20D in all but burst rate. Get an XTi with the 17-40 f/4 L lens - total of around $1100. An all-in-one lens generally sacrifices on all fronts.

A year later, get the 70-200 f/4 L - you will never look back.

[shirk]

I wish the D40/D50/D70/D80's had a higher fps.

The 20D is the DSLR body I would personally go for solely on terms of fps vs the other options in that price range.

[Staggerwing]

I have the D80 and like it. Had a D100 before, which was also good, for its day. And, I think Nikon makes some pretty good optics. That said, I don't know of any, really good, 10x optics. I know, I know, there have been some good reports on the net. Still not going to come anywhere close to any of the excellent 80-200/2.8's, which you can find reasonable used, or the even better 70-200/2.8, which isn't so reasonable new or used. I think Canon has a 80-200/4, which might be a good compromise. Good glass costs, but can last through several body upgrades.

I would rather have great glass on an OK body, than mediocre glass on a great body.

[mtbakerskier]

1. Super zooms suck, don't waste your $$$ on them.
2. Good glass is $$$$$$ but you get what you pay for. Don't skimp on hte glass.
3. The canon 20D is by far the best deal going for the money these days.
4. The digital look is caused by the following:
Shity optics, poor exposures, and not properly post processing the raw files.

[Conundrum]

The XTi is better than the 20D in all but burst rate. Get an XTi with the 17-40 f/4 L lens - total of around $1100. An all-in-one lens generally sacrifices on all fronts.

A year later, get the 70-200 f/4 L - you will never look back.

Is the XTi still a plastic body like the XT or did they beef that up?

[mtbakerskier]

Is the XTi still a plastic body like the XT or did they beef that up?

it's glass reinforced nylon, so yep, still plastic.

[warthog]

1. Super zooms suck, don't waste your $$$ on them.

You know better than I, but the 18-200 Nikon is one kick ass lens.

That said, good luck getting it. Last I checked, it was on a 4-6 month backorder. I got mine with my D200 as a package. Pretty sure they are not offering the D80 kitted with that lens, but they might be.

I LOVE this lens. As a complete amateur, it covers just about everything I need. Only other lenses I am looking at- 50 1.8(cheap and fast), 80-200 2.8.

Maybe a 12-24 Tokina in the future.

[grapedrink]

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/...V47458123_.pdf

canon has a rebate offer until feb 17th, $200 off the 30d if you buy it and a lens, plus you get a rebate on the lens of anywhere from $50 to $100 depending on which you buy so that brings the price of a 30d body down to $900-$950 which is less than a D80..

what would be a good all around lens that could cover the widest range of needs (regardless of whether its part of the rebate thing)? i travel a fair amount and don't really want to be lugging around a bunch of lenses all the time, thats what i really liked about the d80 and the 18-200 lens (which btw i have yet to read anything but glowing reviews about).. is there a quality affordable canon lens thats say 18-135mm?

[Conundrum]

Keep this in mind: I just started taking pics and am finding out that I don't know shit. Look at some of the guys' pics in this place and listen to the good ones. There's plenty of pros 'round these parts.

With that being said, I met a guy with a Rebel XT and a Tamron 18-200 this weekend and he likes it a lot. For an amateur with a one lens quiver, that didn't seem like a bad way to go in terms of money spent and results. I think that just like anything, you can go as nice as you are willing to spend.

I just picked up Viva's Canon 70-200 F4L and it is sick. I just walked around the neighborhood snapping shots and the pics are so much better than with my older, cheaper lenses. We're hiking for sunsets the next couple days and a dawn patrol and I'm stoked.

[LeeLau]

Read this about Canon Lenses

http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html

Read this about Canon and other lenses for reviews

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

For user reviews - see www.fredmiranda.com - requires login.

I bought a Digital Rebel XT. My thoughts were that this is a camera I could grow into and learn with. I got it brand new in box for 450 canuck basically by waiting till the Digital Rebel XTi came out.

I know a lot of people will say that the 20d, Rebel XTi is so much better but, FOR MY PURPOSES, this camera is a bit smaller, not as expensive (so I don't mind if I ding it a bit skiing or biking or touring), and was at the right pricepoint for me to graduate from a point and shoot (Canon S60 - shooting almost always with manual controls).

I'm almost certain I will abuse this camera and will take to a lot harder places then most people. I know its got a lot of plastic. I know the controls are not as conveniant as the 20D. Having said that, reputedly the 20D is about as weather proof as the Rebel XT.

As for lenses the primary lense I use for skiing on bright days is an EF-S 10-22. I got it off a Vancouver camera store for $ 700 which is about what a US retailer would charge. I want a relationship with this camera store so I wouldn't even have minded paying a little extra.

I also got a 50mm Mk 1 prime lense which I will use for our typical west coast cloudy overcast days.

I bought a dirt-cheap 28-200 Promaster (made by Tamron) for $ 100. It's not very wide angle. I have a really hard time holding it steady at 200mm so I usually have to jerry rig some kind of tripod by using a ski pole but it takes decent pictures.

I know a Canon 70-200 lense would be great but they're heavy as all hell and I just don't see myself being that serious about photos to justify carrying one around.

I am intrigued by the Canon 70-300 IS lense but haven't even used one yet.

As for one size fits all lense that can be carried around easily, Tamron makes a 18-200 lens that is compact, relatively cheap and gets good reviews for having bang for the buck but I haven't used it myself.

As for my personal opinion:

- The Canon 10-22 is built so much better and is so much more finished and has an autofocus that kicks the tamron's ass. You really do get what you pay for. I really really like that lens. All things being equal, I get much better low-light shots then the Tamron.

- To my uneducated eyes, the Tamron takes pretty damn decent shots. Not bad for a $ 100 lense! If I wanted conveniance and had space limitations I would still carry just the Canon 10-22 but I like to take panoramics and lots of wide angle.

- Ask me my opinion again in a year after I've got upgradeitis and bought more pretty lenses with white bodies and post more on fredmiranda.com then on TGR

[grapedrink]

thanks for all the advice, so on the nikon side i'd get the D80 with the 18-200mm lens, but if i go canon i could get the 30d for the same price as the D80 and the only lens that could really be a 'one lens solution' would be the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS. it's a canon L, its got a 4.4x zoom which is enough for my everyday needs, image stabilization which should help in those low light situations to help make up for the lack of F2.8 in some situations, and no wide angle but i can always take two pictures and stitch them together which will give a higher resolution result anyways.

so its not as versatile as the nikon lens but looks to be better quality overall although photozone.de say there's a fair amount of barrel distortion at 24mm which is what i would probably be using most often so that's a concern, and also at 24mm there are chromatic aberrations issues at F4. will this pose a problem for indoor shots or low light shots or is the iso performance of the 30d good enough that i wouldn't need to shoot at F4 to get a decent shutter speed? i dunno, is it just me or at these prices shouldn't these lenses be pretty much flawless? seems like even if you spend a fortune you still have to pick and choose the flaws you're willing to live with..

[summit]

screw the 18-200 get a real lens not a 10X piece of crap

and your one lens solution for the 30D is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS same price and performance as the 24-105 except that you get a 2.8 lens that has wideangle capability (27mm equivelent)

[grapedrink]

screw the 18-200 get a real lens not a 10X piece of crap

and your one lens solution for the 30D is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS same price and performance as the 24-105 except that you get a 2.8 lens that has wideangle capability (27mm equivelent)

i just read through pages of reviews for both lenses and it looks like the 17-55 is the way to go, good call people really like that lens, despite its dust issue which doesn't actually seem to affect image quality. guess i can pick up a 70-200 F4 or F2.8 somewhere down the line. thanks everyone!