The DSLR Thread

[arjunrudra]

Originally Posted by it_inspector

Are you serious. This is the first time you are buying a DSLR and going for a D300s. D300s is not everyone`s cup of tea. Its essentially a D700 with crop sensor.

Even D90 is over the edge for you. Get something like Nikon D60/D3000 and it will still take you fair few yrs to learn all the principles of photography.

For lenses, i think tamron makes or 18-270 or similar lens. It has Image Stabilization but is half the cost of Nikon 18-200mm. But remember in order to get this huge range, a lot of sacrifices are made, on both tele and wide you will see distortion and then CA and the lens being slower.

But in the end its your choice.

Cheers

Originally Posted by DieselFan

Arjun,

My suggestion is to go for the cheapest body D40 or D3000 and then buy expensive lenses. Lenses last much longer and appreciate over time. Bodies become obsolete within a couple of years.

So which one's do you suggest d60,or d40 or d3000?
I thought the D90 was a good one and relatively easy to use.
The only thing is I don't buy or change my gadgets very often and when I do I plan to get a good one.
Anyways will take your suggestion . which model and which lens?
I just plan to buy one lens so please do tell me a multipurpose lens.

[navin]

Originally Posted by it_inspector

.
Sorry, i should have been clearer. When we talk 24p,30i,50i,60i. We are talking about frame rates. .

I don`t know which 55-250mm is called bokeh machine here but in my experience, Canon 55-250 was a crap lens, altough 70-300mm was a completely different machine.

1. sorry I think I was also not clear that you were refering to frame rates.
2. The Canon 55-250 IS is a decent lens. You must have got the old non-IS version. The 70-300 has less distortion at both ends when used on a APS-C body because it is a FF lens and only the central portion of the lens is used. The 55-250Is however is killer VFM.

I would have got the 55-250 over the 70-300 had it been available at the time. I dont think I'll need a sensor bigger than APS-C (I need to test JPG the output of my 40D on a TV greater than 46" to confirm this). I have compared the JPG output of the older 5D with 24-100/4 vs a 40D with 17-55/2.8 on a 46" and the difference was not that big. Just for fun I tried a 70-200/2.8 on the 5D and 40D and the results were surprising - laymen (my FIL, wife, etc..) preferred the output of the 40D - just goes to show that even big lenses have enough pincushion/barrel distortion to be noticeable when enlarged to 46". On a 40D since only the center of the lens is used there was less evidence of distortion.

[finneyp]

Originally Posted by arjunrudra

Was initially confused between the d300s and the d90.Can u please shed light on this topic too.

There is no harm if you can start with a mid-range dSLR like D90.
And just go with the kit lens (18-105).

[navin]

Originally Posted by arjunrudra

So which one's do you suggest d60,or d40 or d3000? I just plan to buy one lens so please do tell me a multipurpose lens.

THe way i chose my DSLR was this...

1. What do i intend to shoot with this camera?
- Indoors?
- Sports?
- Lighting conditions?
- special features such as frames per second, weight, etc...

2. Which lenses (I restricted myself to Nikon and Canon but you can add Pentax and Olympus to this mix if you like) will do the above job(s) best?

Once you know which lenses you need the body will be easy to choose. Remember bodies get obsolete far faster than lenses so choose your lenses first.

In my case because I dont like flash and shoot indoors a lot I wanted a f/2.8 IS lens that went from 28-105 (35mm equivalent). The closest was the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS. The rest was easy.

The other that I have a mental block with is zoom lenses that "cheat" (have variable max aperture). I know this is not logical but I am old, senile and a real stick in the mud. I could not wrap my head around a lens that went f/3.5-5.6 so my choices were limited to the f/2.8 or f/4 lenses only.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

Sorry i was talking from Canon user's perspective, not Nikon's. I don;t have much idea about Nikorr glasses and their behaviour. By the way, when you are talking about stopping down that'll be almost unusable (say incase of bird/animal) if you've to stop down the lens to f11 or so to get that sharpness, as you'll be loosing the shutter speed. And that's where the beauty of the so called overrated lenses come into picture. I really how many here will shoot stop down while shooting action shots. I've seen the canon 55-250 and it's nowhere good when wide open. 70-300 IS is much better though but not cheap as you've mentioned(36k is not cheap).
Actually 24-105 f4 works an excellent walk-around lens and complements the 10-22 and 70-200mm pretty well. I really miss that range in my camera and that 50mm is not enough to bridge the gap of 22mm to 70mm. But that damn thing is costlier.
As I told you why anyone would spend on the zoom is because of the versatility and the 70-200mm is almost as good as a prime in that range. Well you may need a magnifying glass to see the quality differences. And I hate to keep on changing my lenses. Call me lazy
But again, barring the 24-105mm all other f4 variations are cost effective compared to their big brothers and that's the only point I wanted to make and surely they are not waste of money. At least for people like me who are not so well endowed to get the big brothers all the time. I would anyday buy a 17-40mm over a 16-35mm unless I find King Solomon's treasure.
Ciao.

I dont think that 17-40 is as good at F4 than what it is at smaller apertures. I am sure it has to to be stopped down for critical sharpness. So the advantage of a constant F4 is not really being used here. So I think you shoud really try some good primes to really know what you are missing. The primes (I am talking about Nikons and I assume Canon will have these too) like 20 2.8, 35 f2, 35 1.8, 50 1.4 or even the 1.8 are so much more sharper than most zooms at 2.8, that I wont even compare them to these zooms at F4. IMHO its so much better to have a kit lens for good light situations and primes for low light to cover these focal lengths if money is a concern. One can easily stop action in India during day time even at F8 and above and get good shutter speeds.
The nikon prosumer lenses are pretty good infact I may say better than the canon prosumer ones. The 70-300 and the 16-105 and some of the newer 'kit' lenses are really good and no you do not really need to stop down to F11 and up where diffraction kicks in. At F8 and near abouts there are very very good. So for me F4 lenses are neither fish nor fowl. Thats why I made the above comment about F4 lenses and Nikon not having these is not a handicap by any means.

[DieselFan]

Originally Posted by finneyp

There is no harm if you can start with a mid-range dSLR like D90.
And just go with the kit lens (18-105).

A D40 would be a better first DSLR than a D90 unless the user would use the camera all day long and everyday. D40 comes at half the price and weighs half that of D90 and gives almost the same quality of pictures to a novice photographer as compared to D90. Then why go for D90?

[proton]

Originally Posted by arjunrudra

So which one's do you suggest d60,or d40 or d3000?
I thought the D90 was a good one and relatively easy to use.
The only thing is I don't buy or change my gadgets very often and when I do I plan to get a good one.
Anyways will take your suggestion . which model and which lens?
I just plan to buy one lens so please do tell me a multipurpose lens.

Go for the d60: it has the dustbuster feature missing from the d40.

Get the kit. Use it for a while and decide what focal length you use the most and then buy those primes.

[finneyp]

Originally Posted by DieselFan

A D40 would be a better first DSLR than a D90 unless the user would use the camera all day long and everyday. D40 comes at half the price and weighs half that of D90 and gives almost the same quality of pictures to a novice photographer as compared to D90. Then why go for D90?

If I am new to driving & can afford a Swift, why should I buy a 800?

If someone is serious about photography, better to go for a slightly advanced dSLR with more manual controls!
Also, it performs well in low light conditions compared to the basic entry models.

[arjunrudra]

Well guys you have given me good information on all the cameras.which one to buy is still unclear.

I will be using it as a regular camera for indoor and outdoor purposes.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by it_inspector

No point buying 17-40 f4 or 16-35 f2.8, rather buy Sigma 17-50mm f2.8, just remember to buy a quality uv filter, since its focusing distance is so close, people run into things trying to get a little bit too close.

Hmmm let's see, it's better to have options. But seeing Sigma's legendary quality control I'm really worried to buy a lens from them.
BTW, I never use a UV while shooting unless trying to shoot in the rain or heavy dusty condition probably.

Originally Posted by it_inspector

Extension tubes are a different thing to TC`s. Extension tubes are for MACRO purposes while TC is used to introduce a factor to increase reach.

I do know the difference Sir, you got me wrong. Let me try to make it clear. Most of the TC's won't take all kind of lenses. They normally have a protruding element in the front(i.e. where you'll mount your lens) and due to that you can't mount all the lenses directly but the only the one's meant to be mounted. But workaround is to have extension tube mounted on the TC and then mount the lens on the tube's mount. So it's Camera->TC->ExTube->Lens. Hope I'm clear now.

Originally Posted by SPARKled

I dont think that 17-40 is as good at F4 than what it is at smaller apertures. I am sure it has to to be stopped down for critical sharpness. So the advantage of a constant F4 is not really being used here. So I think you shoud really try some good primes to really know what you are missing. The primes (I am talking about Nikons and I assume Canon will have these too) like 20 2.8, 35 f2, 35 1.8, 50 1.4 or even the 1.8 are so much more sharper than most zooms at 2.8, that I wont even compare them to these zooms at F4. IMHO its so much better to have a kit lens for good light situations and primes for low light to cover these focal lengths if money is a concern. One can easily stop action in India during day time even at F8 and above and get good shutter speeds.

Let's see, I don't think my finance will allow me to have so many lenses. I do agree that primes are a different ballgame alltogether (I do have 2 primes and both are quite good and I love them) and anyday can give the zooms run for their money. But again carrying too many lenses is bit of a hassle and financially impossible for me. But may be in the future I'll definitely go for some. ACtually you've almost pushed that inside my mind and now I'm thinking about what lens next now. That's bad Sparkled, you are going to make me poorer soon

Originally Posted by SPARKled

The nikon prosumer lenses are pretty good infact I may say better than the canon prosumer ones. The 70-300 and the 16-105 and some of the newer 'kit' lenses are really good and no you do not really need to stop down to F11 and up where diffraction kicks in. At F8 and near abouts there are very very good. So for me F4 lenses are neither fish nor fowl. Thats why I made the above comment about F4 lenses and Nikon not having these is not a handicap by any means.

OK, no issues but if Nikon doesn't have them doesn't mean that the one's that Canon have are bad or useless. Sorry I may sound harsh but somehow I don't see a point of discussing about the F4 vs. F2.8 zooms anymore as it's now kind of veering towards Nikon Vs. Canon war and I don't want to be in it.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

Let's see, I don't think my finance will allow me to have so many lenses. I do agree that primes are a different ballgame alltogether (I do have 2 primes and both are quite good and I love them) and anyday can give the zooms run for their money. But again carrying too many lenses is bit of a hassle and financially impossible for me. But may be in the future I'll definitely go for some. ACtually you've almost pushed that inside my mind and now I'm thinking about what lens next now. That's bad Sparkled, you are going to make me poorer soon


OK, no issues but if Nikon doesn't have them doesn't mean that the one's that Canon have are bad or useless. Sorry I may sound harsh but somehow I don't see a point of discussing about the F4 vs. F2.8 zooms anymore as it's now kind of veering towards Nikon Vs. Canon war and I don't want to be in it.

Good to know tha you are heading towards a prime as your next lens, trust me you will not be disappointed

I am not starting any Nikon or Canon war it has been . I was just justifying my statement that Nikon not having F4 lenses in in their arsenal is no disadvantage after you justified how good Canon F4 lenses really are and what a boon they are for people who cant afford the 2.8 L lenses.

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by navin

2. The Canon 55-250...snip...

Again i never said its a bad lens, its just not that great either.

Originally Posted by SPARKled

I dont think that 17-40 is as good at F4 than what it is at smaller apertures...snip...

I am going to try and finish this war over f4`s that i started. Every single zoom performes best at f8 and every single prime performs best at f5.6

There it is.

Originally Posted by arjunrudra

So which one's do you suggest d60,or d40 or d3000?
I thought the D90 was a good one and relatively easy to use.
The only thing is I don't buy or change my gadgets very often and when I do I plan to get a good one.
Anyways will take your suggestion . which model and which lens?
I just plan to buy one lens so please do tell me a multipurpose lens.

You need to actually list where the camera will be used most of the time and what are your shooting habbits.

Also i feel you should go with pentax since you don`t like to change things often and want all in one and at the moment K7 has pretty much best VFM.

Also i think just a kit lens will be best for you, get a combination of kit lenses, like 18-55 and 55-200 plus a 50mm f1.8

Originally Posted by arjunrudra

Well guys you have given me good information on all the cameras.which one to buy is still unclear.

Please read few reviews at cameralabs and dpreview. Also go through glossary of terms at dpreview. Which ever term you don`t understand, google it.

Originally Posted by finneyp

If I am new to driving & can afford a Swift, why should I buy a 800?

If you scrap the side of Swift its going to be twice expensive to fix than 800.

Originally Posted by DieselFan

A D40 would be a better first DSLR than a D90 unless the user would use the camera all day long and everyday. D40 comes at half the price and weighs half that of D90 and gives almost the same quality of pictures to a novice photographer as compared to D90. Then why go for D90?

D90 has a vital feature missing from all other Nikon DSLR`s under it, that is in body focusing. In order to use AF this is needed for pretty much all the older lenses and specially for Nikon 50mm f1.8

Also D40/D40x/D60 have discontinued for some time. D3000 is D40/D40x`s replacement while D5000 is D60`s replacement.

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

Hmmm let's see, it's better to have options. But seeing Sigma's legendary quality control I'm really worried to buy a lens from them.
BTW, I never use a UV while shooting unless trying to shoot in the rain or heavy dusty condition probably.

Sigma have the legendary quality control. But its luck of draw, good copies of 17-50 are just amazing.

We are quite opposite, i cannot live without my collection of filters. Altough i feel UV filters are the most important and most misleading filters in digital world. During film times, film used to be sensitive to UV light and hence uv filters were used. Now well there is already a filter inside the DSLR body to prevent sensor from UV light. So no point to use a filter in front of lenses. UV filters do 2 things, add another element to stop light and protect front glass element. I would rather loose a $200 filter than a $5000 lens.

And the things an ND400 does, well it cannot be achieved otherwise. I sometimes find it funny, got a 50mm 1.8 lens to get maximum light and then threw 2 ND400`s in front of it to stop almost all the light. But it does create some awesome images.

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

I do know the difference....snip....

Agreed. But using TC+Extention tube is a dangerous combination.

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

OK, no issues but if Nikon doesn't have them doesn't mean that the one's that Canon....snip....

Agreed.

[finneyp]

Originally Posted by it_inspector

D90 has a vital feature missing from all other Nikon DSLR`s under it, that is in body focusing. In order to use AF this is needed for pretty much all the older lenses and specially for Nikon 50mm f1.8

You got it wrong! D90 has in-body AF!

While D5000 and entry models don't have it.

[kaushik_s]

He he that "..snip.." sounds so funny.
About the TC with ext. Tube that's just a workaround and yes not a good combination(although it won't affect the image quality much from only TC and lens as ext. tube doesn't have any glass element)

Well Sparkled, I'm doomed for sure. But before that I actually would get a walkaround lens as that's what I need very urgently now.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by it_inspector

Agreed. But using TC+Extention tube is a dangerous combination.
Agreed.

Just wondering why is it dangerous? I am not sure if there was pun involved and I did not get it

@kaushik_s: OH OH!! I know that feeling. But whats your existing kit and what are you looking for to spend?