[vijaythacker]

Originally Posted by Sankar

Yes Sir!

I think i should go the Canon 450D/500D way because they make a better (fuller/complete) entry level SLR. I think ergonomics i can get used to in the long run.

i am in the same dilema regarding the same, currently using my canon digital S1000 5 mgp one, want to buy a better DSLR one as current one is used by wife most of the time and i want to enjoy more of my passion for photography, what do you all suggest to buy, also my parents are in USA right now and are returning after christmas,so there would be some deals on offer there, which one do you experts suggest to buy, i am not a professional, but want to opt a better camera, maybe entry level one, budget around 500to 600$.

[lazy]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

So I suggest, get a body first, grey will be cheaper, and ask a friend to get the 15-85 from US in holiday season.

Originally Posted by amitk26

..
Why 400D /450D /500D and why not 1000D with the above lens ? it fits very much in your budget.
..

Thanks for your responses guys.

Tsk, you saying that I should buy only the body right now and wait until the lens comes from US?

amit, you reckon 1000D will really be able to use the lens capabilities?

Btw, please answer whether the 2nd lens is too much worse than the first.
from what I have read, the 1st is not only wider angle, but also uses better optics than the 2nd (apart from ring USM).


thanks.

Originally Posted by lazy

ok, the selected lens: EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.
Problem: costs USD 800 (canon site), & Blore ~ Rs.40k.
And the budget for which I have approval is 40K.

Next, lens choice: EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
Costs: USD 500 (canon site) & Blore ~ 17K.

Now, 2 questions:
1. Is this a good idea - new USM lens above + used body (400D or 450D)?

2. How much worse is the 2nd lens compared to the first above?

[tsk1979]

WEll you can go for the 18-55IS also, but if you want to do serious landscapes, getting a 15-85 is a worthwhile investment.
Other option would be to get the Kit(with 18-55 lens), and buying the 450$ Tokina 12-24 F4 separately.

[navin]

Originally Posted by rkbharat

34K with 18-55 AF-S, VR lense, Bag (Cone type), 8 GB Card, Kenko UV Filter.

Nice deal. 34K with the 18-55!

Originally Posted by lazy

Have pretty much decided on the Canon system.
ok, the selected lens: EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.
Problem: costs USD 800 (canon site), & Blore ~ Rs.40k.

PS: Don’t know how USD800 become Rs. 40K & USD500 become 17K. Blore prices are via phone enquiry to Blore shop.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

and buying the 450$ Tokina 12-24 F4 separately.

Lazy,

What Tanveer suggested is what I had in mind. 15mm translates to 23mm in FF which is just not wide enough for landscapes. Note that the Nikon APS-C crop is 1.5 while Canon is 1.6. A 18-55IS and 12-24 combo will get you more range the only issue I had with this combo is that the 18-55 will find much more use on your body and costs less than 1/2 of the 12-24.

This brings me to another option. If you are looking at a $800 lens get the 17-55/2.8 IS. Later you can add the Tokina 11-16/2.8 ATX-PRO or Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5.

The 11-16 has a small range and hence distortion should be well controlled. For landscapes and architecture distortion control is essential as it becomes quite obvious. I have not use the Tokina 11-16 so cannot comment on it specifically.

Originally Posted by Sankar

Does anyone else who have used both Nikon and Canon entry level SLR cams feel the same?

Originally Posted by Sankar

I just wanted to know if Nikon is indeed better with ergonomics and comfort compared to Canon or if it is just with me.

I used to use a Nikon N80. When I went digital I switched to a Canon system primarily becuase the Canon 17-55 had IS and I would have access to my niece's collection of Canon lenses (70-200/2.8, 300/2.8 etc...). Initially I fumbled around but soon the Canon sysgtem grew on me. Recently a friend gave me his Nikon D1 and again I was fumbling around with the controls. So it is just a matter of getting used to a camera system.

[rkbharat]

Originally Posted by navin

Nice deal. 34K with the 18-55!

Thanks Navin sir.

BTW I found this weird thing about LiveView in D5000, which is true in D90 as well, not sure about others.

Every time you activate the LV, shutter gets actuated and add to shutter count.

So this means, if you have composed a pics, then switch between VF and LV, let say 5 times, and takes the shot, this whole process will add 6 shutter releases to the current count.

Pretty weird

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by navin

I used to use a Nikon N80. When I went digital I switched to a Canon system primarily becuase the Canon 17-55 had IS.....So it is just a matter of getting used to a camera system.

I would really like to know how much one benefits from having IS in less than 70mm range. So far, every single pro says, IS is not neded under 70mm. Even 65mm Macro variants don`t have IS whete it can really be used.

Like i said before, all of the semi-pro and pro bodies have excellent ergonomics. But it comes down a lot to size of hands with every individual. Since i got huge hands, all Canon xxxD bodies feel like toys to me, but enter xD series and its very good ergonomics wise.

Originally Posted by rkbharat

Thanks Navin sir.

BTW I found this weird thing about LiveView in D5000, which is true in D90 as well, not sure about others.

Every time you activate the LV, shutter gets actuated and add to shutter count.

So this means, if you have composed a pics, then switch between VF and LV, let say 5 times, and takes the shot, this whole process will add 6 shutter releases to the current count.

Pretty weird

Every single DSLR except Sony A350 does this. Since sensor needs to be exposed in order to implement LV and yes it does add to the Shutter count.

Sony A350 implements a secondary small sensor and following setup to keep shutter count low as well as faster AF system. Basically normal AF system rather than Contrast based.

Cheers

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by it_inspector

I would really like to know how much one benefits from having IS in less than 70mm range. So far, every single pro says, IS is not neded under 70mm. Even 65mm Macro variants don`t have IS whete it can really be used.

I have been in situations, when even on ISO 1600, the shutter speed was around 1/10(late evening).
Since my 18mm lens does not have IS, shooting at 1/10th of a second gives a good chance of camera shake blur.
Of course I can take 3-4 shots of the same scene, and one of them may come out sharp, but its not really a fool proof technique.
At another time I was in a night area of a zoo where flash was not allowed. So I used the 50mm at F1.8
Even at ISO 1600, I was getting shots which were around 1/30 of a second, and as expected about 50% of my shots did have blur. If I had IS, I would have had better success.
Of course, tripod is an option, but sometimes, you are at places which do not allow tripod(eg Taj Mahal) or its too cumbersome to set up a tripod(crowded places).
So unless pros have bionic arms which allow them to take stead shots with 60mm at 1/20 kind of shutter speeds, pro or no pro, it will always be useful.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by it_inspector

I would really like to know how much one benefits from having IS in less than 70mm range. So far, every single pro says, IS is not neded under 70mm. Even 65mm Macro variants don`t have IS whete it can really be used.

I want to know what these pros are smoking...

The following pic was shot handheld at 24mm EFL, at 1/6 sec. Try doing that without IS.

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

I have been in situations, when even on ISO 1600, the shutter speed was around 1/10(late evening).
Since my 18mm lens does not have IS, shooting at 1/10th of a second gives a good chance of camera shake blur.
Of course I can take 3-4 shots of the same scene, and one of them may come out sharp, but its not really a fool proof technique.
At another time I was in a night area of a zoo where flash was not allowed. So I used the 50mm at F1.8
Even at ISO 1600, I was getting shots which were around 1/30 of a second, and as expected about 50% of my shots did have blur. If I had IS, I would have had better success.
Of course, tripod is an option, but sometimes, you are at places which do not allow tripod(eg Taj Mahal) or its too cumbersome to set up a tripod(crowded places).
So unless pros have bionic arms which allow them to take stead shots with 60mm at 1/20 kind of shutter speeds, pro or no pro, it will always be useful.

Fair enough.

How about a monopod. I find using a monopod way better than a tripod unless its something like 15sec+ exposure.

[tsk1979]

A tripod will also enable you to get steady shots. I think the original point was not whether monopods or tripods are useful, but whether on shorter focal lengths IS is useful.
Tripod/monopod can be used with long lenses also and give you 2-3 stop advantage(in case of latter). That does not mean that IS is useless in long lenses.
So if they give same advantage in short focal lengths, that does not make IS useless either!

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by Sankar

Yes Sir!

I think i should go the Canon 450D/500D way because they make a better (fuller/complete) entry level SLR. I think ergonomics i can get used to in the long run.

Hey Sankar, if you don't mind getting a 2nd hand camera then I would suggest you go for a used 30D (or 40D) as you'll get one within the price range of a new 500D. Much better ergonomics(similar level of the Nikons) and also a better camera.

[Shan2nu]

Speaking of tripods. Can someone suggest one for my Canon 1000 D. Does the tripod have to be from the same manufacturer or can i use any tripod?

Shan2nu

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

Speaking of tripods. Can someone suggest one for my Canon 1000 D. Does the tripod have to be from the same manufacturer or can i use any tripod?

Shan2nu

Any tripod will do. Most cameras have the 1/4"(or is it 1/2" I cannot recall) screw in the bottom, in which the tripod head goes
IF you are looking at 1000-1200rs tripod, go for a Vivitar model, if you want to spend more then you have manfroto etc.,

[bblost]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I want to know what these pros are smoking...

The following pic was shot handheld at 24mm EFL, at 1/6 sec. Try doing that without IS.

Its all about posture and the way you hold it.

I have a pic of the Charminar uploaded in the Binoculars thread.
Left hand holding my Russian binoculars and my camera in the right hand.
Distance between my home and Charminar is about 10 kms btw.

I repeat,
Its all about posture and the way you hold it.

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

A tripod will also enable you to get steady shots. I think the original point was not whether monopods or tripods are useful, but whether on shorter focal lengths IS is useful.
Tripod/monopod can be used with long lenses also and give you 2-3 stop advantage(in case of latter). That does not mean that IS is useless in long lenses.
So if they give same advantage in short focal lengths, that does not make IS useless either!

I get what you are saying. I personally go under 50mm very rarely and havn`t felt the need for IS till 100mm+

I guess it depends alot upon personal need and styles.

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

Speaking of tripods. Can someone suggest one for my Canon 1000 D. Does the tripod have to be from the same manufacturer or can i use any tripod?

Shan2nu

I use Slik and Manfrotto. Brembo makes copies of Manfrotto and Slik and are fairly cheap.

Don`t buy cheap chinese crap. Strong wind and camera/tripod tips and ruins everything.

EDIT: Well since we are on the topic of IS/Tripods/Monopods/Ergonomics, Photosniper was the best alternative and combination