[ampere]

Originally Posted by humyum

Guys how is the 18-200 IS Cannon ? Decided on the Cannon 550 D and need one all purpose sharp lens.

As of now I plan to sell the images I click to magazine or anyone who is willing to buy or work as a freelancer in my 4 month vacation in India. Will it be good enough ?

I guess stating the already known thing:
If you ultimately buy 18-200 just buy the 550D body only. Dont get the kit lens.

I will leave the review of lens to the experts.

[typeOnegative]

Originally Posted by oxyzen

I am not an expert in photography but looking to buy Nikon 3100 as my first DSLR with 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens. Please guide if my choice is correct. Canon 550D is much more expensive (approximately by 13K) and is beyond my budget.
What about Panasonic GF1. Is its picture quality up to the mark with these two?
Looking for mainly a still photographs. Video not important.

What do you like to shoot? All cameras you have named are good cameras. If you are looking at flexibility in lenses somewhere down the line stick to the Nikon/Canon family.

I am not too sure if the GF1's picture quality is better or worse than the other DSLR's. It should be on par mostly. Apart from that it is quite portable. Try the cameras out in the store and go with what feels best in your hand. You can also consider the Canon 1000D as it is going quite cheap now.

[humyum]

Originally Posted by ampere

I guess stating the already known thing:
If you ultimately buy 18-200 just buy the 550D body only. Dont get the kit lens.

I will leave the review of lens to the experts.

Yes getting only the camera body, 599 pounds with warranty etc.

[typeOnegative]

Originally Posted by humyum

Yes getting only the camera body, 599 pounds with warranty etc.

Why don't you buy a 500D and a couple of lenses say an 18-55 and a 55-200? That should cover most of your needs and give you much better IQ as well. If you are working as a freelance photographer, I am sure you would have time to change lenses.

[oxyzen]

Originally Posted by typeOnegative

What do you like to shoot?
You can also consider the Canon 1000D as it is going quite cheap now.

Mainly Landscapes, Nightshots and Macros.
Canon 1000D?? Now you have got me confused.
It a straight 10K cheaper than 3100. (20K vs 30K)
Only a few drawbacks
-10 MP vs 14MP
-Slightly smaller sensor size.
-Video mode.
-Smaller LCD (2.5" vs 3") I hate this 2.5".

I liked the grip of the Nikon 3100. Weight is also well balanced. Do you really think Nikon D3100 is worth the extra 10K premium?

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by oxyzen

Mainly Landscapes, Nightshots and Macros.
Canon 1000D?? Now you have got me confused.
It a straight 10K cheaper than 3100. (20K vs 30K)

Let me confuse you more
Have you considered the Canon 500D? You should get one for the same price as the D3100 and is a much better camera IMO.

[VW2010]

Why not the D7000 from the Nikon. A little extra spent on this body and a 18-200VR lens will serve you quite some time before you start thinking about other lenses and there is definitely an upgrade option later in the form of a D300S or a D400 . My 2 cents to confuse you more.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by oxyzen

I liked the grip of the Nikon 3100. Weight is also well balanced. Do you really think Nikon D3100 is worth the extra 10K premium?

You did not consider what it does not have

1. No DOF preview button , As you are considering macro this is a must.

2. No AF motor , You can not auto focus cheap 50mm F1.8 nikon lens on this.
One of the cheapest macro equipment is auto extension tube and a 50mm lens.
3. Video mode is also crippled i heard with maximum time limit. In case of Canon 500D and above this is limited just by max filesize of 4GB on FAT32 files system.
4. No wireless remote.

If you have budget for D3100 then Canon 500D is much better in same budget
If you necessarily want Nikon then buy at-least D90 .

If you are not keen on Video you can save 10K by Canon 1000D and add some more to get a macro lens like Tamron SP 90 which is approximately 19K.

[oxyzen]

Thank you guys for your response.

Originally Posted by Jaguar

Have you considered the Canon 500D? You should get one for the same price as the D3100 and is a much better camera IMO.

Well i have checked the 500D (35.5K) as well as 450D (34K). The nikon D3100 is (31K). In Nikon I can get 11 point AF (might come in handy), movie mode with continuous focusing + face detection (not that I need this). Overall I dont find the 500D (which is already discontinued) worth the extra cash unless it is a much better camera. BTW why do you think it is a much better camera. I have seen sample photos, both produce almost similar image quality.

Originally Posted by VW2010

Why not the D7000 from the Nikon. A little extra spent on this body and a 18-200VR lens will serve you quite some time before you start thinking about other lenses and there is definitely an upgrade option later in the form of a D300S or a D400 . My 2 cents to confuse you more.

Man you are talking about stuff worth 80K. As a beginner neither can I justify such an investment nor can I exploit the maximum out of it. In fact I would not mind a 18-55 and another 55-200 zoom lens(sometime later).

Originally Posted by amitk26

You did not consider what it does not have

1. No DOF preview button , As you are considering macro this is a must.
What does this button do. Cant I change the depth of field by changing the aperture and see it in the live view? I mean how is it more helpful?

2. No AF motor , You can not auto focus cheap 50mm F1.8 nikon lens on this.One of the cheapest macro equipment is auto extension tube and a 50mm lens.
Yes have to make sure all lens are equipped with AF as well as VR. I think this is same for canon lens as well.

3. Video mode is also crippled i heard with maximum time limit. In case of Canon 500D and above this is limited just by max filesize of 4GB on FAT32 files system.
I do not intend to take videos. However I believe taking videos heats up the sensor and might not be good in long run. That is why I am inclined towards 1000D.

4. No wireless remote.- Not that important.

Originally Posted by amitk26

If you have budget for D3100 then Canon 500D is much better in same budget
If you necessarily want Nikon then buy at-least D90 .

If you are not keen on Video you can save 10K by Canon 1000D and add some more to get a macro lens like Tamron SP 90 which is approximately 19K.

I think I am getting more inclined towards 1000D. but the 2.5" lcd sucks.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by oxyzen

I think I am getting more inclined towards 1000D. but the 2.5" lcd sucks.

Still I won't consider 1000D because of poor low light performance. D3100 has the edge here. For me, 1000D is just a compromise as of today - you can buy it if you just want to have a DSLR and not a fine prosumer super zoom or an EVIL.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by clevermax

you can buy it if you just want to have a DSLR and not a fine prosumer super zoom or an EVIL.

That comment somehow puts EVIL camera down as a so-so camera. Not right.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by Samurai

That comment somehow puts EVIL camera down as a so-so camera. Not right.

No Samurai san.. IMO, an EVIL is better than the basic entry level DSLR. I'd prefer an APS-C EVIL over 1000D any day.

[amitk26]

Oxyzen If you just intend to always use live view then there is no point in buying a DSLR you should acutally buy ligheter , more compact mirrorless APS-C Cam like Sony NEX3 or NEX5. The advantage of DSLR is optical view finder which enables faster focussing and optical view finder allows you to see the image through the lens even in the harshest sun whcih is a constraint for live view.

Originally Posted by oxyzen

Thank you guys for your response.


Well i have checked the 500D (35.5K) as well as 450D (34K). The nikon D3100 is (31K). In Nikon I can get 11 point AF (might come in handy), movie mode with continuous focusing + face detection (not that I need this). Overall I dont find the 500D (which is already discontinued) worth the extra cash unless it is a much better camera. BTW why do you think it is a much better camera. I have seen sample photos, both produce almost similar image quality.

Image quality will be similar even from 1000D as it is more dependent on lens and photographer rather then the body. Any way here is my take on it

1. 11 point AF versus , 9 point AF versus 7 point AF : not much of value in real life scenario , Actually what this number of point means is visible points in view finder which gets illuminatged but actually the AF depends on the AF Zones.

2. 500D is not discontinued , You will buy it with full bill and warrenty. Canon churns out models faster packing more features that just means they have more R&D budget and more money to spend on engineering teams but that in no way obsoletes the older model.

Originally Posted by oxyzen

1. No DOF preview button , As you are considering macro this is a must.
What does this button do. Cant I change the depth of field by changing the aperture and see it in the live view? I mean how is it more helpful?

The aperture of AF lens only closes when you click image. So DOF preview force this aperture to close for enabling you to see how much depth of field you will get before clicking.
Without DOF preview it is click and see on LCD and reclick and may be if subject is a butterfly it will fly away meanwhile.
Everything is possible if you don't have a feature but when you are making a buying decision why to buy a crippled camera ?

Live view has no bearing on the closure of aperture of AF lens.

Originally Posted by oxyzen

2. No AF motor , You can not auto focus cheap 50mm F1.8 nikon lens on this.One of the cheapest macro equipment is auto extension tube and a 50mm lens.
Yes have to make sure all lens are equipped with AF as well as VR. I think this is same for canon lens as well.

VR is vibration reduction this is not we are talking about any way Nikon AF lenses are costlier where as in case of Canon all lenses are alike and Canon 50mm F1.8 is just 4.2 K where as the cheapest Nikon AF fast prime is goint to be 16K.
So in case you have any future plan to buy prime lenses Nikon D90 works out cheaper then D3100.

Originally Posted by oxyzen

3. Video mode is also crippled i heard with maximum time limit. In case of Canon 500D and above this is limited just by max filesize of 4GB on FAT32 files system.
I do not intend to take videos. However I believe taking videos heats up the sensor and might not be good in long run. That is why I am inclined towards 1000D.

Well in your initial post you cited Video as a requirement.

BTW Video heats up sensor is true to certain extent but this does not affect much modern sensors , People are making advertisements and full length movies with Canon DSLR. Earlier generation CCD sensors used to heat up but may be this is no longer true.

Another point if sensor heating is your prime concern you should not use live view either.

What actually happens in live view is that your mirror is lifted , Sensor captures the image and provide the feed to LCD without writing the encoded data to card and that is why live view is slower. In case of recording an encoder is added in the pipeline and sink is the filewrite on card.

Since no damage is reported by usage of live view in either DSLRs or EVIL it just proves that sensor heating up is more of a FUD.

Originally Posted by oxyzen

4. No wireless remote.- Not that important.

Well it can be very important in certain cases. Remotes are cheap few hundred ruppes at the most and reduce shake for long shots.
Wired remote is an alternative.

Originally Posted by oxyzen

I think I am getting more inclined towards 1000D. but the 2.5" lcd sucks.

Why exactly it sucks ? Again if you want to use LCD like P&S camera better buy EVIL , Lighter , compact and pocket friendly

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by amitk26

What actually happens in live view is that your mirror is lifted , Sensor captures the image and provide the feed to LCD without writing the encoded data to card and that is why live view is slower. In case of recording an encoder is added in the pipeline and sink is the filewrite on card.

Not in all cameras Amit, some sport a secondary sensor, and the mirror stays in the same position, reflecting the image to a secondary sensor which is kept near the eyepiece.

Sony A550 has a secondary sensor based live view and also can switch to the main sensor based live view.


I am getting more and more tempted to upgrade to this body!

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Not in all cameras Amit, some sport a secondary sensor, and the mirror stays in the same position, reflecting the image to a secondary sensor which is kept near the eyepiece.

Sony A550 has a secondary sensor based live view and also can switch to the main sensor based live view.

I am getting more and more tempted to upgrade to this body!

Thanks of this image and info on this body. Also heard that sony has introduced a newer body A33 I think with translucent mirror so that FPS can be much higher and there is no mirror movement.

Well the explanation was with reference to the live view in cameras in his list ( D3100 , 1000D and 500D and probably D90 .