The DSLR Thread

Knight Rider · 15th March 2009, 19:44

Can any of the experts help me please?

finneyp · 15th March 2009, 23:06

Knight_rider, I am not a expert, but for a beginner I would suggest Nikon D80.
You can get it at a very good price too.

If you are getting the cam shipped from abroad, apart from shipping you also have to pay the Customs duty (around 21% of camera price).

Knight Rider · 15th March 2009, 23:30

Thank you@finneyp! I will surely try out d80 as well, I happen to know someone at the customs and hence the reason I thought of shipping it from US! Would that work?

NomadVagabond · 16th March 2009, 01:12

@ Knight Rider

Yes a D80 is a good cam to start with. A friend of mine is actually selling her kit which consists of a sparingly used D80. We shoot together almost all the time so she's shifting to a Canon so that we can share lenses. I've been using her Nikon from time to time and it has many features which my existing Canon doesn't. I find the that cam a great one to start with.

Regards,

Anirban.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotzuk

Welcome aboard Anirban....
I am sure you will have a great time around here.

Cheers

@ gotzuk

Thanks Vaibhav. Yes I will have it for sure. Well good news for you. The download is complete

. I'm testing it if it works properly. Will let you know tomorrow on phone.

Cheers,

Anirban.

drpullockaran · 16th March 2009, 01:34

For the price you are not going to get anything better than the Nikon D40 period( I am not talking of the D40x). Have you wondered why the D40 is listed as a current model in the Nikon lineup even though its such an old camera. Its because the guys at Nikon could not conjure up a better replacement. Please do not get carried away by the megapixel race as it means sweet nothing for beginers like you and me.
Low light performance is the key for the likes of you and me and by that I mean lowest pixel density( I am not talking of total pixel count). Buy the camera that you can afford with the lowest pixel density and be warned that cameras with a lower pixel density than the D40 will cost you a bomb if you are climbing up the megapixel ladder.
Read the articles thoroughly and also know that when you buy a cmaera buy one that has a pixel density thats less than 2.

Once again may I remind you to forget about megapixels once and for all. For veiwing pictures on our computer monitors we do not need photos more than 4 megapixels anyway.

Nikon D40

Pixel Density: Camera System: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review

Pixel Density: when Moore is less: Digital Photography Review

Knight Rider · 16th March 2009, 02:02

Thank you people, @drpullockaran, thats very comprehensive post. thank you for taking the pain to post it, I am not worried about the pixels at all, i saw the results when a friend of mine clicked using fuji finepix. that was just 5mp.. I currently have a 10mp digital cam.. Was nowere near... The 5mp camera was so fine.

harjeev · 16th March 2009, 07:39

@Anirban
Thanks a lot man!
I think that sometime later this year I will take the plunge and buy myself a D-SLR.
What lenses do you advise, I should go in for.

My primary use will be

Wildlife (mostly in day time only) so I think that I won't be needing a higher aperture. Am I right? But I would be needing a good zoom
Action photography, (We guys go for Off-Road meets 4x4's etc) This too is in the daytime only.
Leisure (family functions, vacations, and misc, this might include night photography too) but again high zoom like the one required for the wildlife photography, won't be a priority.

reignofchaos · 16th March 2009, 10:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpullockaran

For the price you are not going to get anything better than the Nikon D40 period( I am not talking of the D40x). Have you wondered why the D40 is listed as a current model in the Nikon lineup even though its such an old camera. Its because the guys at Nikon could not conjure up a better replacement. Please do not get carried away by the megapixel race as it means sweet nothing for beginers like you and me.
Low light performance is the key for the likes of you and me and by that I mean lowest pixel density( I am not talking of total pixel count). Buy the camera that you can afford with the lowest pixel density and be warned that cameras with a lower pixel density than the D40 will cost you a bomb if you are climbing up the megapixel ladder.
Read the articles thoroughly and also know that when you buy a cmaera buy one that has a pixel density thats less than 2.

Once again may I remind you to forget about megapixels once and for all. For veiwing pictures on our computer monitors we do not need photos more than 4 megapixels anyway.

Nikon D40

Pixel Density: Camera System: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review

Pixel Density: when Moore is less: Digital Photography Review

D40 is a junk camera as has been mentioned quite a few times. Please search to know more. It doesn't autofocus a majority of nikon lenses and is quite kludgy to use overall. The high ISO performance is not great either - there's significant amount of noise at ISO 800.

Pixel density is useful as a measure only when the micro sites used for capture are identical. Obviously they are not across all cameras and newer models have better micro sites which resolve color/luma better. Moot point being my Canon 40D which is 10MP absolutely thrashes the old 8MP 350D I had in high ISO performance. ISO 800 on the 350D is worse than ISO 1600 on the 40D. Both have the same sized sensor but the pixel density is higher on the 40D. This obviously is becase of better photo sites on the sensor. However if the sites and image processing system are the same, a lower pixel density means lower noise.

The only reason the D40 has been kept alive by nikon is to grab market share. Folks with limited budgets who've not done enough background study are suckered into buying the D40 after looking at the low price tag.

DieselFan · 16th March 2009, 10:40

How reliable is ebay.in in buying expensive DSLR cameras? Any first hand experience both good and bad would be really useful.

navin · 16th March 2009, 12:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by harjeev

My primary use will be

Wildlife
Action photography
Leisure

Budget lens set: 18-55, 55-250, 50/1.8 even this set will cost you about Rs. 25K+.

Next step up
Wildlife:
70-200/2.8 IS with a 2x teleconverter or if you are on a budget the 70-300 IS. The advantage of IS on a wildlife lens is that most times you wont have a tripod and might even be panning to catch an animal on the move. If you are averse to teleconverters the 80-400/4-5.6 (100-400/4.5-5.6L in canon's case) is an option.

Action: depends on how far you are from the action
For my son's school sports I manage with a 17-55 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS (borrowed from my niece). For indoor sports (basketball/table tennis) the 85/1.8 offers low light performance at a good price if you have a bigger budget get the 135/2L (never used but it has a superb reputation).

Leisure: if you have the budget get the canon 18-200/3.5-5.6. It is prefered over the Sigma and Tamron even though the others are cheaper and have more range (250/270mm). Another option is the 24-105/4 IS which can work for both Action (under good lighting) and leisure and will stand in you in good stead if you ever upgrade to FF. I also use the 16-35/2.8 as it is light and manvouverable and works when the subjects are close (adult parties) and a 28/1.8 for candle light again if you have the budget go for the 24/1.4L (again never used it but excellent reputation).

Samurai · 16th March 2009, 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpullockaran

For the price you are not going to get anything better than the Nikon D40 period( I am not talking of the D40x).

If one is open to buying little older dSLRs, you can get better deals than D40.

Case in point: Amazon.com: Olympus Evolt E410 10MP Digital SLR Camera with 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 and 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 Zuiko Lenses: Electronics

This comes with 2 kits lens, not just one. It even has live-view. When we compare DSLRs, there is no point talking about image quality. Every dSLR currently in the market can deliver more image quality than we amateurs can handle.

deky · 16th March 2009, 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselFan

How reliable is ebay.in in buying expensive DSLR cameras? Any first hand experience both good and bad would be really useful.

I bid for my Sony DSLR on ebay.com using my cousins account (she has a US address) and the camera was shipped to her address.

My experience with ebay.com was excellent and the condition of the camera was absolutely new as it was mentioned in the advert. The shipping and handling was professionally done too. Hence i save almost 30% of my money if I would have bought the same camera from India.

I guess it all depends upon the reputation of the seller and how many positives the sellar has. So you will have to keep that in mind before you buy something

NomadVagabond · 16th March 2009, 18:58

Well I don't think so I've anything more to add to what Navin has already added. He's outlined the exact things which I'd have suggested you too. The only thing which I might say is that using a teleconvertor is not really appreciated as the f-stop increases drastically which results in the image quality getting low as the dof increases. And yes for wildlife a 400mm is like mandatory. Though the 70-200mm is a good lens but then again, the 70-200mm 2.8 IS costs almost as much as a 100-400mm so why not go for that the first place itself?

@ Navin

Do you have any idea how much the 85mm 1.8 costs?? I'm looking for a fast portrait lens for low light situations. I've zeroed on the 100mm 2.8 macro which doubles as a medium level portrait lens. But, after using the 50mm 1.8 I find most lenses not satisfactory. Hence the 85mm is an interesting proposition. What are your views on that lens?

Regards,

Anirban.

reignofchaos · 16th March 2009, 21:03

^^If its purely for portrait, the 85 1.8 is far better. The 100mm is good for macro but the bokeh you get is rather flat when used for portraits. Its the most incredibly sharp lens though. Very easy to take stunning photographs with it.

I got my 85 1.8 for around 13.5 grand pristine used copy. New ones retail at 20k or so these days.

NomadVagabond · 16th March 2009, 21:39

@ Regionofchaos

Thank you so much for the info. Well I am more into nature photography so well a dedicated lens for portrait alone will be a bit too much on the pocket right now. But, well I checked the reviews of the 85mm and all the reviews say that it's best stopped down below f/2.8 till around f/4. Keeping that in mind then i guess the 100mm macro would be a good lens too. What is your view?

Regards,

Anirban.

15th March 2009, 19:44	#496
Knight Rider BHPian Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bangalore Posts: 283 Thanked: 28 Times	Can any of the experts help me please?
	() Thanks

15th March 2009, 23:06	#497
finneyp Senior - BHPian Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bangalore Posts: 2,762 Thanked: 400 Times View My Garage	Knight_rider, I am not a expert, but for a beginner I would suggest Nikon D80. You can get it at a very good price too. If you are getting the cam shipped from abroad, apart from shipping you also have to pay the Customs duty (around 21% of camera price).
	() Thanks

15th March 2009, 23:30	#498
Knight Rider BHPian Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bangalore Posts: 283 Thanked: 28 Times	Thank you@finneyp! I will surely try out d80 as well, I happen to know someone at the customs and hence the reason I thought of shipping it from US! Would that work?
	() Thanks

16th March 2009, 01:34	#500
drpullockaran BHPian Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: ERNAKULAM Posts: 961 Thanked: 388 Times	D40 and nothing else comes remotely close even in the NIKON range For the price you are not going to get anything better than the Nikon D40 period( I am not talking of the D40x). Have you wondered why the D40 is listed as a current model in the Nikon lineup even though its such an old camera. Its because the guys at Nikon could not conjure up a better replacement. Please do not get carried away by the megapixel race as it means sweet nothing for beginers like you and me. Low light performance is the key for the likes of you and me and by that I mean lowest pixel density( I am not talking of total pixel count). Buy the camera that you can afford with the lowest pixel density and be warned that cameras with a lower pixel density than the D40 will cost you a bomb if you are climbing up the megapixel ladder. Read the articles thoroughly and also know that when you buy a cmaera buy one that has a pixel density thats less than 2. Once again may I remind you to forget about megapixels once and for all. For veiwing pictures on our computer monitors we do not need photos more than 4 megapixels anyway. Nikon D40 Pixel Density: Camera System: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review Pixel Density: when Moore is less: Digital Photography Review
	() Thanks

16th March 2009, 02:02	#501
Knight Rider BHPian Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bangalore Posts: 283 Thanked: 28 Times	Thank you people, @drpullockaran, thats very comprehensive post. thank you for taking the pain to post it, I am not worried about the pixels at all, i saw the results when a friend of mine clicked using fuji finepix. that was just 5mp.. I currently have a 10mp digital cam.. Was nowere near... The 5mp camera was so fine.
	() Thanks

16th March 2009, 07:39	#502
harjeev Senior - BHPian Join Date: May 2006 Location: New Delhi Posts: 1,900 Thanked: 296 Times View My Garage	@Anirban Thanks a lot man! I think that sometime later this year I will take the plunge and buy myself a D-SLR. What lenses do you advise, I should go in for. My primary use will be Wildlife (mostly in day time only) so I think that I won't be needing a higher aperture. Am I right? But I would be needing a good zoom Action photography, (We guys go for Off-Road meets 4x4's etc) This too is in the daytime only. Leisure (family functions, vacations, and misc, this might include night photography too) but again high zoom like the one required for the wildlife photography, won't be a priority.
	() Thanks

16th March 2009, 10:40	#504
DieselFan Senior - BHPian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Bangalore Posts: 1,584 Thanked: 260 Times	How reliable is ebay.in in buying expensive DSLR cameras? Any first hand experience both good and bad would be really useful.
	() Thanks

16th March 2009, 18:58	#508
NomadVagabond BHPian Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Dilli Meri Jaan Posts: 75 Thanked: Once View My Garage	@ Harjeev. Well I don't think so I've anything more to add to what Navin has already added. He's outlined the exact things which I'd have suggested you too. The only thing which I might say is that using a teleconvertor is not really appreciated as the f-stop increases drastically which results in the image quality getting low as the dof increases. And yes for wildlife a 400mm is like mandatory. Though the 70-200mm is a good lens but then again, the 70-200mm 2.8 IS costs almost as much as a 100-400mm so why not go for that the first place itself? @ Navin Do you have any idea how much the 85mm 1.8 costs?? I'm looking for a fast portrait lens for low light situations. I've zeroed on the 100mm 2.8 macro which doubles as a medium level portrait lens. But, after using the 50mm 1.8 I find most lenses not satisfactory. Hence the 85mm is an interesting proposition. What are your views on that lens? Regards, Anirban.
	() Thanks

16th March 2009, 21:03	#509
reignofchaos Senior - BHPian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Bangalore Posts: 2,558 Thanked: 2,527 Times View My Garage	^^If its purely for portrait, the 85 1.8 is far better. The 100mm is good for macro but the bokeh you get is rather flat when used for portraits. Its the most incredibly sharp lens though. Very easy to take stunning photographs with it. I got my 85 1.8 for around 13.5 grand pristine used copy. New ones retail at 20k or so these days.
	() Thanks

16th March 2009, 21:39	#510
NomadVagabond BHPian Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Dilli Meri Jaan Posts: 75 Thanked: Once View My Garage	@ Regionofchaos Thank you so much for the info. Well I am more into nature photography so well a dedicated lens for portrait alone will be a bit too much on the pocket right now. But, well I checked the reviews of the 85mm and all the reviews say that it's best stopped down below f/2.8 till around f/4. Keeping that in mind then i guess the 100mm macro would be a good lens too. What is your view? Regards, Anirban.
	() Thanks