Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-75.html)

Well, me too in a similar boat. So, suggestions to Shaju would help me as well.
Btw, is Nikon's mid range 55-200 or 55-250? Canon I think has 55-250 IS which gives an effective focal length of 88-400mm.

After first week of honeymoon with Canon 1000D , these are my observations on this equipment:
-Handling is not really bad,atleast for a newbie it will never be a bothering. Because at most am spending tens of minutes only ,continuously. Actually, everyother (non-rebel series) SLR has got a better grip than this.Handle this , and you love to handle everything else.
-Textured grip would have improved the feel.
-Construction is solid though looks may decieve.
-Live view is an absolute waste for normal shooting. Would porbably be great for macros/manual focusing on tripod.
-1.5FPS raw speed is not a bothering ,for me atleast. 3FPS jpeg does great with normal cards too.
-Spot metering would definitely be advantageous where one has to fiddle with partial metering.
-Most of the night shots come out great even without flash, thanks to good ISO1600 performance.
-ISO change button is handy contrary to some comments in web articles.
-exposure compensation button placement is indeed a little awkward, needs some practice.
-Auto display off (eye sensor) would be a nice convinience,which is dropped off.
Things which I disliked:
- I heard Nikons doesn't shoot if focus is not achieved.This canon(I think all canons) sometimes let you shoot even before getting a proper focus lock.Unless the camera is hunting for focus, at all other times one can get a photo,focused or unfocused.
-With non-IS kit lens,chromatic aberration in photos is visible even on LCD screen of camera.
-One important reason why I had picked up Canon over Nikon is my belief that AF-S lenses are costlier than EF-S counterparts.
But seems like am wrong as some good AF-S glass buck that trend.
So, there is not any distinct advantage of choosing an entry level Canon over entry level Nikon.
It is more important to start and progress persistently,doesn't matter with what you start with.
-Auto lighting optimiser doesn't have much visible effect.
- No image retouch options like in Nikon.
- Only +/-2 range of exposure compensation makes the shutter speed or aper.value flash in broad day light.(I mean it tries to convey that exposure is beyond range).Other players like Sony,Nikond have five levels of compensation either side.

So, does I recommend this to a friend?
Yes if budget is limited and warranty is a must. If not , then there is 40D body retailing at 36K in grey market( I came to know of it after my purchase :Frustrati ).

My suggestion is not to go for grey when you have B&W option with a marginal additional cost. 55-200 vr is available for 13000 rs. with B&W. 70-300 is available at 29K. Also it is not advisable to go in for 18-200 Lens (Market price is 36K and exchange reduction of 7k for 18-55 VR lens) as any lens more than 5X magnification is a suspect especially in the telephoto range.

Look at 18-105 which comes with D90 as standard. It is a good lens to cover most of your needs (90%) unless you are going on a wildlife photographic expedition:). It is priced at around 18K I think but not sure.

Thanks for the tips, surprisingly I am getting more confused after reading few reviews at dslrworld and dpreview etc. Now I have the following to chose from. Its more tough than selecting a sedan in the market now.

1. Nikon 18-105 VR (D90kit lens) as suggested by dieselfan (exchange with 18-55VR)
2. Nikon 55-200 VR ( somehow hating the idea of carrying 2 lenses now )
3. Tamron 18-250 (around $450)

I am sure if I want to shoot some birds, I need to look at something over 300mm for a decent result. Presently holding that 'wider' ambition until I master my equipment features. There are 100s of birds around my building itself, I feel so sad missing zooming on them (all within 50 meters radius). Tamron 18-250 or the Nikon 55-200 could easily cover them all.

Its very tough to decide. Reading more reviews can only confuse, specially if one wants a budget based buy. Wish my gadgets were sponsored by 'National Geographic".

Shaju, go for Nikon 18-200 VR, a good allrounder lens!

Check the User reviews here:
Nikon | 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR Autofocus | 2159

Ummm...no, don't go for the 18-200. If you're anyway getting an 18-105, then please look at a 75-300 (Sigma/Tamron also would do).

Reason: I use an 18-250 Sony lens and though its very versatile and has the some of the best IQ of superzooms, its just not as fast as a conventional telephoto lens. That's reason #1 but more importantly, I can say from experience that if you go out to shoot birds - you won't miss any shots by taking a 75-300 telephoto lens. This whole "I dont like changing lenses" attitude will easily disappear once you realize the virtues of a dedicated telephoto. The telephoto will also be faster - wider aperture.

The places where superzooms make sense is: on holidays/trips where casual snapshots are more important and places where speed is necessary. On the Gypsy rides in Corbett I was able to shoot off both nature landscapes and telephoto wildlife shots with the same lens with ease. Though after returning, I wished I had a 2 lens combo for better IQ. Of course, I would have taken more time for each of the shots - I would need to keep the telephoto lens on most of the time and switch to a wide-angle for landscapes some of the time - but patience is one of the key virtues for good photography. :)

Take it from a photographer who speaks from having learned the hard way. :D

Bottomline: 18-105 + 70-300. Much better!
Payne

I read the reviews in so many places. Creeping is a very loudly commented issue about this lens. So, I really dont have this in my list of options.

Nikon 70-300 VR was initially in my list. If thats the choice, then 18-55 kit lens could remain with me, because 55 to 70mm one does not lose anything (cameralabs video comparison). Also it saves the 18-55 exchange loss that could come up while picking up 18-105. Dont you think so ?

Another reason for me to keep the 70-300 off list, was the reviews that mentioned about the 'not so sharp after 200mm' . So again, its a tug-of-war between choices, budget and compatibility. If you include Sigma and Tamron (I agree its more economical) to the options, it becomes a chaos exactly like you chose between a santro/spark/i-10/U-VA/vista/estillo/i-20/fabia with a huge budget range of 4 laks to 7 laks. :)

Here is a good and reasonable comparison Camera Labs :: View topic - 55 - 200 VR lens or 70 - 300 VR??

It's often stated that telephoto zoom lens give best results at mid range. Be ready to carry out some amount of post processing to get better results at extreme end of telephoto else opt for a better(expensive) lens. One can't expect best performance in entire zoom range on a budget lens. And, as stated by Samurai & others earlier in this thread, don't look for lens with more than 5x optical zoom (in P&S parlance).

Hi in spite of the above, i have found this panasonic lumix FZ 28 to be a good idea. a dslr with an optical zoom of 18 x link PANASONIC LUMIX DMC FZ28 Review, PANASONIC LUMIX DMC FZ28 Price, Specs, Megapixel - MouthShut.com

any comments from the gurus. I like it simple but a good zoom requirement is a must.

^^ goandude: The FZ28 is not a DSLR. Its a superzoom camera with a much smaller sensor and a lens made for that body and lens. The lens does not come off and cannot be changed for another. Yes, it is a good idea but with its own limitations. If you're a beginner, you'll enjoy the camera a lot and will be able to learn a lot due to the manual controls as well.

If you're very very serious about getting into photography - learning DOF, using varied ranges of focal lengths, ready to spend a lot into systems and lighting, prepared to invest time, money and mind into it - then go for a DSLR. It'll payoff in the long-run. But if you're just a casual user looking for good photographs and convenience for snapshots, the FZ28 is both simpler and far cheaper than any DSLR. And the best of the superzooms.


@shaju: I just stated that the 18-105 is better because you could use it as a one-lens solutions for walkarounds, and normal trips. Of course, the 18-55 + 75-300 is a cheaper solution. :) Just take the telephoto already man!

Happy shooting!
Payne

I have the Nikon 70-300G ED lens, which is sharp even after 200mm, the only problem is a very very minor aberration, which you cannot expect any lens at this price to be better at. though now im thinking of shifting to the 18-200VR, as it would be an all-in-one solution for me.

Thanks a lot. It is not SLR but it has some feature like filters which one can add. Like you said it is one of the best of the superzooms. BTW what is 18 X eqivalent to in SLR lingo eg 30 - 200 ?

RK guide also is offering grey prices without bill. I am cross checking prices at various places. Many people recommended Jayesh (photocircle), I called him twice, both times he asked me to SMS him the model number and he would send me the price by SMS. I repeated the SMS thrice in the last 3 days, so far no response. May be he made enough money in life !!

I am an impulsive buyer when it comes to gadgets, home stuff, personal stuff etc. but this is the longest I have ever waited in my life to buy something. The confusion of chosing a lens still continues. If I buy 18-200 I will have a walkaround single lens but needs to worry about the creeping or whatever else might come up later. If I get the 55-200, then its kit lens and a zoom lens to be carried for sure. If I opt for 70-300, again its 2 lens but the bag gets really heavy too. Sigma and Tamron both have 18-250, but no user experience found anywhere.

Have you given thought to another important factor of dust entering inside while changing lens? ( which by the way may add to the confusion, but still an important thing to be considered)

Payne, what is the aperture at the longest focal length of your superzoom wide open and what is the aperture of a `conventional telephoto' at the long end?? Most likely they will be the same - 5.6. The advantage of a two-lens combo is a marginal improvement in speed at the short end of a telephoto like the 70-300 over a superzoom at the same focal length.

If it's speed you're looking for then you need a constant aperture high-end telephoto like the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR.

Shaju, you're nitpicking and worrying about too many things (and if I may add, reading too many reviews). I'll make it simple for you:

1. Most expensive and if you want one lens then go for the 18-200.

2. Least expensive - if you're unsure about spending too much cash on equipment then keep the 18-55 and add the 55-200.

3. The middle path in terms of expense is to keep the 18-55 and add the 70-300VR. The advantages of this are that you get a good telephoto, better in quality than the 18-200 or 55-200 from 70mm to 200mm. Compared to the 55-200, the 70-300 is full-frame with more advanced VR and AF. The disadvantage is that you carry two lenses.

Hope this helps.