[Samurai]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Incidently after the release of Olympus 410/510, in body IS will come to olympus too, and then Canikon will be the only guys without in body IS.

I am like what the heck you are talking about... so I google. Damn, I missed this news completely as I was travelling since yesterday. I knew it was going to happen, but not so soon. This means 3 of my high quality 4/3 lenses will become IS lenses once I switch to the new body.

But I am not in a hurry, my E-500 is serving me well. The E-510 will release in July and then I'll wait for 6 months to get all the reiews and stuff.

extreme_torque, here is my two cents. When it comes to lens slection, Canon and Nikon leave everybody behind, nobody argues that. But, those great selection of lenses (especially if you need IS) comes with big price tags. Here is my take, if you are planning to spend more than Rs.2 Lakhs on your dSLR system (body+lenses), then Canon and Nikon are the way to go. But if you are an amature, planning to spend below Rs.2L, then your money is spent better on 4/3 or Pentax. I would suggest 4/3 since Olympus has some very good choice of bodies and lenses. With 410/510, even IS is covered.

[extreme_torque]

2 lakhs is way too big an amount for me to spend on a camera, I will infact practice on the kit lens itself and probably move ahead from there, after sufficient exposure to photography and learning the intricacies. I will give you a background so that you know where I am coming from and then give me a suitable advice.
I was interested in buying a prosumer P&S camera, but the one which gives me all the manual controls, so that I can practice different settings and experiment. I was undecided between the just launched olympus SP550UZ and Canon S3 IS which incidently is used by a lot of my friends. The specs for olympus are very good to say the least and I had a budget of around 20-25k's depending on the camera I buy. Then came the idea of buying a entry level DSLR, why not spend 10-12 k's more and go for an entry level DSLRS which will in anycase be better than a prosumer P&S camera by a huge margin, infact there's no competition. Came accross Sony DSLR A100 which is available in US for around 624$ with 18-55mm kit lens and it comes with dust reduction system and censor shift image stabilization meaning all the non IS lenses are will also be IS to some extent, but then the higher ISO performance of sony left a lot to be desired. Came accorss Canon 400D which has a dust reduction system but no IS, meaning expensive IS lenses if I buy them in future but the image the overall image quality especially at higher ISO's was the best to say the least, even better than Nikon D80 and better than Sony A100 by a mile. A little undecided b/w Sony or the Canon, though i think the perfect compromise would be the Canon.

P.S This would be my first real digital camera, after those silly 3X optical, 5-6 megapixel prosumer cam's.

[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

IS, meaning expensive IS lenses if I buy them in future

How often one uses Image Stabilizer? Before investing, one should ask this question to himself.
For Canon, moment you mount an IS lens on tripod (It'll be the case because big and heavy lenses come with tripod collar mount), internal sensor senses that and switches off IS function. IS in switched on position will help you to drain the battery fast.

And no matter what, heavy lenses need practiced hand to manage .

[gkrishn]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

A little undecided b/w Sony or the Canon, though i think the perfect compromise would be the Canon.

ET(!?!?),
i am no expert... but with what ever little experience, start with entry level canon or nikon dslr+kit lens. Also get a 50mm equivalent lens, with lowest f-stop possible, if budget permits. This setup should help you long way into knowing things about photography.

Dont worry too much about what you might do in future. Never know what you might end up doing...

[tsk1979]

@extreme, my personal favorite apart from the canikon brigade is the Pentax, because of low noise as compared to Sony. I am biased because I like to do long exposure shots.
As for Sony, just having a similar sensor does not make it as good as the D200. There are lot of other things too. I suggest you check out the K100D/K10D and A100 on the site dpreview.com
K10D does not get a good rating because of bad in camera processing, but K100D gets real good reviews.
Then Oly is another favorite of mine, but due to noise, I took a canon.

What really interests me on pentax is the weather sealing, and from the users(mostly in the US) it works pretty well, with light drizzle not a trouble. I would not dare to take out my 350D in the rain!

In the end I would like you to try all the cams, feel them see what feels nice to hold and go for it.

With Sony you get 3 year warranty, canon gives you 2 and Oly gives you 1, ditto for pentax and nikon.

Pentax and Oly warranties are worldwide, so you can get your cams much cheaper from the US too!

[Zappo]

ET, here is one for you buddy. People will and do have different opinions and their personal favorites. However looking at your budget and requirement here is what "I" would say.
* Check out the new Nikon D40. It was launched after D50 and addresses a few issues people cribbed about and reduced some not so important features. Yet it takes astounding images through its kit lens.
* The images are good for A4 size prints even at ISO1600. Thats really great.
* Its lighter and yet provides amazing control and features comparable to some really high-end DSLRs.

What have they reduced?

* Three point focus (instead of 5 in D50). And yet it causes no issues as such.
* The in-camera status LCD at the top is gone. The back display is what is used for the purpose.
* No bracketing for exposure.
* Only AF-S and AF-I Lenses support auto focus. Older ones minus the motors in their lenses will only support manual focus. Does not matter as long as they are CPU lenses and hence do not loose out on feedback. Only you do the focusing manually. Also, chances are you won't have any of those lenses with you.

And now the clincher. You can now get a D40 for just around 23k here in india. Even one with UV filters, high speed 2gb SD Card (SanDisk Extreme III) costs around 29000. Go find a better deal buddy



As for the IS is concerned, besides what Rudra sir said let me ask you something. When do you really need IS? Well... unless you are alzheimers afflicted and your hands shake constantly you won't need IS for regular shots. Heck people did without IS for decades... and they did pretty well.

IS becomes necessary for cameras like S3 IS because of those huge telephoto lenses they sport. At the tele end even a minute shake of hand shows up as a big blur. However do you really need that kind of telephoto shots? I mean are you planning to go on say a jungle safari where you will be perched on a tree and shoot a lioness half a kilometer or further away? Or even if you do that will be once in a lifetime kind of a scenario.

Regular images won't need more than 3x zoom. Anyhow kit lenses will also offer about that much zoom only. IMO you do not need to bother so much about IS.

[tsk1979]

If you are even remotly into birding, you need IS.
Birds come in evening and morning when light is low.

[manson]

uys enough of that IS, SLR, Heavy lense, light lense!!!! going crazy reading this stuff, can someone just go off toic and suggest me a simple 6-7 mpg camera from nikon/canon?

manson.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

If you are even remotly into birding, you need IS.
Birds come in evening and morning when light is low.

I will move to bird photography after sometime for sure, but then i can always use a low shutter speed and high ISO (thats why Canon) and with some practice I can have relatively steady hands. If it doesnt works even then, IS is always the option.

Thanks a lot for your help guys, its very much appreciated.

[kutlee]

Originally Posted by Zappo

And now the clincher. You can now get a D40 for just around 23k here in india. Even one with UV filters, high speed 2gb SD Card (SanDisk Extreme III) costs around 29000. Go find a better deal buddy

Zappo,
Is it including lense? Checked out in JJmehta. They say body and standarkd lense kit is around 26k. with 2gb extreme card, its around 29k as you told.

[extreme_torque]

@Zappo... D40 is nice but its "strictly" entry level DSLR. The same logic again 10k's more and a better camera overall... why not? But as you said, I will have a look at it again. There one's Nikon D40X, will look at it too.

P.S I have a limit as to how much I will spend on the Camera... around 30-35k's.

[tsk1979]

Around 30-35K you can get the following in grey market
1. Canon - 350D, 400D
2. Nikon : D50, D70S, D40, D80(40K)
3. Oly - E-500. E400
4. Pentax - K100D, K10D(Difficult to find in grey).


Canon has great high ISO capability, but the viewfinder on the 350D sucks. Don't know about the 400D though, never used it.

[Zappo]

Originally Posted by kutlee

Zappo,
Is it including lense? Checked out in JJmehta. They say body and standarkd lense kit is around 26k. with 2gb extreme card, its around 29k as you told.

Yes kutlee dearie... its very much with the kit lens. And I think its a really good price to pay for a camera that is otherwise very much capable.

Ummm... ET... I do not want to force my views on you buddy. But then I did not understand what you mean by Entry-level. Is it that you are paying less for a D40 and hence it is entry-level to you? I mean what is the basis for this statement? Sure... the more the sweeteners you add the better the things become. You add moolah you get more bells and whistles. The question is do you really need all that? For example, a D80 monster will weigh in at something well above 800 gms... with a bulky lens it may even go over 1 kg... you really think you gonna lug around that load with you all the while?

Of course, if you are that passionate about photography where you can/will debate for hours on the merits of 11 point AF (D80) or the DOF of the lenses (oh, those you can anyhow have even with D40) then its a different matter and even a D80 may just look so-so in such cases.

Afterall 3 years back when Nikon launched the D80 they said it is the ultimate "entry-level" DSLR and cheapest bargain one could ever imagine. Now the times have changed and Nikon had to respond to the market forces. So now the D40 is entry and erstwhile entry-level king D80 looks oh-so-great.

However, finally its your call. To me a 480gm DSLR with almost all the features of a regular SLR and yet with the ease of a P&S in useability is more meaningful. Its only to my advantage that the vaunted Nikon wants me to even pay less for it. They believe that if they can induce "me" to SLR field with a low price then in future they may manage to sell me those costly glasses (that is where they actually earn anyways) and make a tidy gain.

[extreme_torque]

@zappo.. Since i am getting the cam from US, i will get it at the price for which i'll get the D40 here or a few k's more.

[ntomer]

Originally Posted by Zappo

Yes kutlee dearie... its very much with the kit lens. And I think its a really good price to pay for a camera that is otherwise very much capable.

agreed. D40 is certainly a very good camera. But it's light meter ain't that good. D70 and D50 used light meters from D200 and they are far better than the ones in D40 or D80.

Originally Posted by Zappo

Afterall 3 years back when Nikon launched the D80 they said it is the ultimate "entry-level" DSLR and cheapest bargain one could ever imagine.

Three years!!!!! If I am not wrong D80 was launched less than a year ago. Sometime in mid-2006.

Originally Posted by Zappo

However, finally its your call. To me a 480gm DSLR with almost all the features of a regular SLR and yet with the ease of a P&S in useability is more meaningful.

Well said.

\N