|
skidawg
Sep 23, 2008, 12:58 AM
Post #1 of 43
(13264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 171
|
This might not be the best place to ask this question because I'm really looking for a camera set up for wildlife/outdoors but assume I can at least get help on the body if not the lense too (and these forums have always been a good resource). I don't want to slim my options too much from the start, but have been looking at Canon for the most part, with Nikon as a second choice. I'm also not rich by any means, but will get this piece by piece in time if that's what it takes (I know it will be pricey...especially when it comes to the lense(s)). Thanks for any help.
cheers,
Justin
|
|
|
|
|
Sarah_Sunshine
Sep 23, 2008, 2:00 AM
Post #2 of 43
(13242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2008
Posts: 42
|
Hey, I posed this question to my techno nerd friend who helped me pick out a camera recently, the Digital Rebel XSi. I bought it on eBay from Pyxis Camera. I got a kit for $985 with tons of stuff, including a backpack, which would be useful for toting around outside. Here's what my friend said:
since he's not rich, i'd recommend what you bought. there are much more expensive Canon DSLRs out there, but the XSi is a good value for what he wants. he can buy lenses piece by piece ... there's no reason he needs to buy anything more expensive than the Digital Rebel XSi, to be honest, unless he plans to go pro. and even then, not entirely necessary.
Happy photo taking!
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
Sep 23, 2008, 2:01 AM
Post #3 of 43
(13238 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
You should be able to get a good price on a Canon 40D as the new 50D has just hit the stores (the next model up from the XSi/400D).
|
|
|
|
|
skidawg
Sep 24, 2008, 12:37 AM
Post #4 of 43
(13157 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 171
|
Thanks for the replies guys. Are there any glaring advantages to the 40D over the rebel XSi? I notice there is a large price difference. Obviously I still have a bit to learn about the details but from what I understand, it's the lens that is most important...as long as I get a decent Canon/Nikon dSLR it would be hard to go wrong...is this the right way to think about this? Like I mentioned I am not exactly rolling in the dow, but this stuff costs enough that I want to get high quality results even if it takes me a while to get each component.
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 24, 2008, 3:15 AM
Post #5 of 43
(13134 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Becuase newer models have come out, you can now get a good deal on both the Nikon D80 and the D200.
Cheers
Eman
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Sep 25, 2008, 1:02 PM
Post #6 of 43
(12958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
There are several points that make the 40D superior to the Xsi but whether you will need them depends on how you plan to use it.
The 40D has a better build (durability) than the Xsi. It'll have a slightly faster and more accurate focusing system and perform better at higher ISOs. For many the deal breaker is the 40D will shoot up to 6.5 framer per second.
The differences between these two cameras matters only on how you plan to use the camera. For many the plusses of the 40D don't offset the added cost over the XSi. FWIW I know nothing about Nikons. Good luck with your search.
d.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Sep 25, 2008, 4:44 PM
Post #7 of 43
(12921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Do not consider any camera that lacks a dust-removal system--that is an absolute must-have, way more important than pixels. If you're serious about outdoor photography, you're probably better off with either Olympus or Pentax. With Canon or Nikon, you either get a light flimsy toy or a heavy durable brick.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Sep 25, 2008, 5:17 PM
Post #8 of 43
(12912 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
Traditionally the two most important parts of an outdoor photographers arsenal are a sturdy tripod (usually several hundred to a thousand dollars) and a good selection of lenses. Buy into a system that allows the best lenses, modern dslrs are out of date quickly but lenses last forever.
The one really compelling feature of the latest generation of SLR's is the high ISO low noise performance so get one with that (in the nikon line that means d90,d300,d700,d3). This,in combination with Vibration Reduction/Image stabilization is letting some people get by without tripods. Dust reduction sounds awesome but i haven't tried it yet.
Lens wize you are going to want something wide for scenic and shots where you are very close to the climber and something long for distant shots. This probably means at least two lenses and don't worry if there are gaps in the middle of the range.
Nikon offers the best selection of lenses on the used market. Many of them are old pre auto focus lenses which will have limited functionality on cheaper bodies...you may have to guess exposure and check the histogram to see if you got it.
Here are are a couple taken with a used nikon d200 (no high iso, no dust cleaner) and a used 180mm f2.8 manual focus lens. Image files are straight from the camera with no post processing beyond resize.
Scott Witcomb atempting to Onsite "Dreamin'" 12a R at Smith Rocks.
Ben kuntz, banks lake.
and here is one with a mf 24 f/2.8
Lisa flashes "off the couch" v7. i may have botched the focus a bit on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Sep 25, 2008, 8:22 PM
Post #9 of 43
(12861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: Do not consider any camera that lacks a dust-removal system--that is an absolute must-have, way more important than pixels. If you're serious about outdoor photography, you're probably better off with either Olympus or Pentax. With Canon or Nikon, you either get a light flimsy toy or a heavy durable brick.
Pentax may have nice weather sealing on their cameras but that's a somewhat moot point if their "affordable" lesnes don't have the same quality. Their bodies have some nice features but Canon/Nikon destroy them in focus speed. I know nothing about Olympus DSLRs so I can't comment there.
I don't think my 40D is all that heavy....now throw a 24-70L on there and it's a different story.
d.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Sep 25, 2008, 10:45 PM
Post #10 of 43
(12841 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
guangzhou wrote: Becuase newer models have come out, you can now get a good deal on both the Nikon D80 and the D200. Cheers Eman
But you're better off not getting a good deal since the newer models are light years apart.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 26, 2008, 1:37 AM
Post #11 of 43
(12812 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
The D200 is still a very good camera that many pros are still carrying around today. Plenty of camera for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
williamjbauer
Sep 26, 2008, 3:06 AM
Post #12 of 43
(12787 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 31
|
I really like the D80, a lot of value for the price and my experience is that Nikon is a bit more durable than the Canon.
Another note, I broke a lens by dropping my camera, totally my fault and Nikon fixed it for FREE, no questions asked.
|
|
|
|
|
braaaaaaaadley
Sep 26, 2008, 4:18 AM
Post #13 of 43
(12774 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 576
|
Food for thought:
I want to add a couple things that I didn't see mentioned above. First, the new Nikon D90 is capable of shooting HD video. I think that would be a huge plus for a climbing photographer. Obviously this is not the camera to get if you are on a tight budget. Secondly, Nikon is in the process of updating many of their prime lenses which means that old models will be selling for cheap (which is important if your on a budget) and updated optics will be available which is good if your interested in unmatched image quality. If you are a beginner SLR shooter and plan only to shoot climbing/outdoorsy images in good light, I would get a D70s or cannon's counterpart. I would do this because there are great deals to be had on these bodies (~$300). If you decide to go this route, you won't feel too bad when you drop your camera off a cliff or it gets wet etc. Also you will have more money to spend on lenses, which are in my opinion more important than the body. If you don't plan on shooting indoors or at night and you don't plan on printing shots greater than 8X10, an older body like the d70 is all you need. Goodluck with your decision. Feel free to pm me if you have any more specific questions.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Sep 28, 2008, 3:28 AM
Post #14 of 43
(12592 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
dlintz wrote: roy_hinkley_jr wrote: Do not consider any camera that lacks a dust-removal system--that is an absolute must-have, way more important than pixels. If you're serious about outdoor photography, you're probably better off with either Olympus or Pentax. With Canon or Nikon, you either get a light flimsy toy or a heavy durable brick. Pentax may have nice weather sealing on their cameras but that's a somewhat moot point if their "affordable" lesnes don't have the same quality. Their bodies have some nice features but Canon/Nikon destroy them in focus speed. I know nothing about Olympus DSLRs so I can't comment there. I don't think my 40D is all that heavy....now throw a 24-70L on there and it's a different story. d.
Oh shit, I haven't been on here in weeks, maybe months, and I return to bullshit like this.
Can you substantiate a single word you spewed?
Please for the love of god, make up total lies on a Canon forum, but don't waste everyones time on here.
Canon lenses are absolutely fine, but the build quality is just ok. The reason Canon and Nikon are so big in photojournalism is they fought tooth and nail to win that market. There is nothing wrong with what they make, it's good gear, but it's just gear, it's not magic, it doesn't self heal when you drop it, it does break, it takes time to be fixed, it cost money, and it's not gold.
If you really want to ENJOY using your camera pick up a Pentax Limited lens or a DA/FA* these are simply some of the best lenses ever made.
Oh and before I go any further, let me just mention the FA* 85mm 1.4, you do realize that MANY Canon shooters have taken this lens, and attached it to there Canon rigs because quite simply it is THE BEST 85mm ever built.
Pentax has some sort of evil shadow over it simply because it didn't battle Canon and Nikon for the pro market of 35mm. And that perhaps was a mistake but the fact is owning the pro market and making quality cameras have little to do with anything. Look at Leica, they produce the finest lenses, and cameras that last decades, if not lifetimes and don't even make an auto focus lens.
I always have to point out that Pentax was the only brand of the 5 major Japanese brands (Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Minolta and Olympus) that had a medium format line, and not only that but it had 2 medium format lines, 645 and 67.
I should point out that the Pentax LX was perhaps the finest manual focus 35mm pro camera ever built, simply blew away the Nikon F3 and Canon (was it F1) of the era. The sealing, complete mechanical operation (yes it worked just fine even if the batteries died), the on the film metering, etc.
I really ask anyone to even pick up a current national geographic or outdoor photographer magazine, even in the day of 5Ds and Hassy $40,000 medium format digital, the Pentax 645 or 67 system often has a few images credited to it.
Am I a Pentax fanboy? Maybe, but I also shoot Nikon, and I've had quite a few different brand digital and film compacts including Canon, Panasonic, Olympus, etc. I like cameras, but I think they are a tool.
The reason I like Pentax, aside from the stellar glass, that some idiots don't even realize exist, is the value for money.
Because Pentax didn't offer a photojournalism oriented SLR or DSLR since the LX (1980s), it was able to put features in it's moderately priced top of the line cameras that simply were not found on Canon or Nikon cameras.
My film PZ-1P matched the Nikon N90 spec for spec, and actually had a few nicer features in some spots, the N90 has a slightly more diverse AF system (more focus points, but having used the N90 and PZ-1P I can say that since I default even today to center point for sports, the PZ-1P was equally fast and more accurate).
Anyway, the N90 is one of the best selling 35mm auto focus SLRs of all time, yet the PZ-1P is simply a better camera.
Pentax is auto focus accuracy test consistently beats Nikon and Canon. Yes, Canon cameras fire off more shots when Pentax cameras stutter for confirmation but the shots are always sharp!! What good is a unsharp shot?
The point of course is that Pentax was able to bundle lots of value into great cameras, the lenses, well, the 31mm FA Limited was rated by PopPhoto as one of the 3 BEST AF LENSES OF ALL TIME!!!!!
The 50mm FA 1.4 also just recently ranked tops above both Canon and Nikons offerings in the 50mm field.
The Limiteds are solid aluminum barrels with MILLED aluminum focus rings (no cheap rubber). These lenses are simply the finest build you can get without going Zeiss or Leica. The bokeh and rendering qualities of these lenses is something special as well.
The Pentax 14mm DA was at the time of it's release both the smallest and fastest digital wide angle lens by any of the big Japanese makers.
The Tokina 12-24, is a sister design of the Pentax 12-24 f/4 which beat out the Nikon equivalent in PopPhoto's digital wide angle test. The Tokina is not the same construction or grouping but quite a few Canon and Nikon owners have this collaborative lens on there cameras.
The Pentax kit lens also ranked at the top of the camera kit lens test.
And Pentax does use metal lens mounts on all it's cameras, Canon does not. Even the base cameras (till this year) were always stainless steel lens mounts on both the low end camera body and the kit lenses.
Pentax just released 5 weather sealed zooms/primes, which when the in body stabilization is factored in are a steal.
DA* 16-50 2.8
DA* 50-135 2.8
DA* 200mm 2.8
DA* 300mm f/4
DA* 60-250 f/4
Also on the horizon is a weather sealed 30mm 1.4, and a weather sealed 55mm 1.4 was just announced and should be out around Christmas.
The 35mm DA 1:1 macro I was just testing is a great lens. Simply amazing.
And the older FA 35mm 2.0 makes Canon and Nikons offerings just look silly. The FA35 is sharp wide open, and I mean tack sharp with over 70 lines of resolution at F/2.0 and it reaches just shy of 100 lines at f/5.6-11 where it peaks.
So while you should be loyal to whatever gets you the best images, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't spew utter nonsense that you have absolutely no data to back up.
So what do we have:
We have weather sealed lenses for under $1000.
We have some of the finest primes made.
We have weather sealed bodies for as little as $600.
We have more accurate focusing.
We have the highest resolution sensor on the market second to the Canon 1DsMIII (which cost $8000) compared to the $1100 14.5MP Pentax CMOS.
We have in body stabilization and non crippled lens mounts that allow us to use ANY LENS made for Pentax cameras including those old, and robustly built M42 screw mounts.
All our cameras have spot meters (does anyone not remember when Canon made 20D buyers upgrade to 1DMIIs to get a spot meter?)
(This post was edited by pico23 on Sep 28, 2008, 4:13 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Sep 28, 2008, 3:40 AM
Post #15 of 43
(12588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
just as a note, there is a seam in the counter right where the 50-135mm is which is making it tilt.
Oh and just for shits and giggles, it's hard to see the relative size of those Limited primes.
Here is a good example of the size.
The lens on the left is a $800 weather sealed DA* (does Canon make any weather sealed lenses for less than $1000??)
The middle lens is a Pentax 21mm DA Limited F/3.2 (1/3 stop slower than 2.8)
The right lens is a Sigma EX 20mm f/1.8 (about 1/3 stop faster than f/2.0)
Simply put the robust all metal construction of the DA Limited pancake design, the size and the rendering qualities of this lens make it one of my favorite lenses.
I took the sample shot with a 25 year old Vivitar Series 1 28mm f/2.0.
The 28mm f/2.0 works flawlessly with my 2008 K20D, my 2006 K10D, my 2003 D, as well as all my film cameras. The Vivitar 28mm 2.0 was made by Kiron and is a cult classic. It's not quite the size of the 21mm Limited, but for it's relative speed, and robust construction it's a lens that is a true pleasure to use even in 2008, or about 30 years post production.
(This post was edited by pico23 on Sep 28, 2008, 3:42 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Sep 29, 2008, 1:12 AM
Post #16 of 43
(12459 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
If wildlife is important to you, then your number one priority is access to afordable long (400mm+) glass. I think canon has a slight edge in this area right now over nikon, both buying and renting. I am on my way home from my forth trip to yellowstone in the last 18 months, and you can never have enough reach, from lens to pixel density. Other then that, it is hard to buy a bad dslr these days, even if it is a generation or two old.
|
|
|
|
|
michael_c
Sep 29, 2008, 3:17 AM
Post #17 of 43
(12425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2005
Posts: 29
|
What does everyone think of the K200D? I'm looking at getting a new camera and I've liked the look of this compared to say the 450D, since it is weather sealed and the lenses seem to be much more affordable.
I'm not so worried about the lesser continous drive function or not having a live view.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Sep 29, 2008, 8:56 AM
Post #18 of 43
(12371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
michael_c wrote: What does everyone think of the K200D? I'm looking at getting a new camera and I've liked the look of this compared to say the 450D, since it is weather sealed and the lenses seem to be much more affordable. I'm not so worried about the lesser continous drive function or not having a live view.
Just as a note on the K200D, it's virtually a K10D but with some downgrades and some upgrades. Overall it's not quite a K10D in any regard. Ironically, the K10D for about 2 months before it was officially discontinued sold at below the K200D price. I'd recommend if you can locate a new K10D going that route first, but the K200D does have at least 1 feature I really wish Pentax had given me in a firmware upgrade. A DR expansion setting. On the K20D this was impressive, giving me an extra stop in the highlights.
The build on the K200D blows away the other entry level cameras which is something to consider. Just the fact that it's sealed should give an idea of the tighter tolerances.
I haven't confirmed this, but my source told me that while the K200D is weather sealed, the K10D/K20D along with the Olympus E-1/E-3 are the only 2 "splash" proof DSLRs on the market when a weather sealed lens is attached.
Basically, the difference is the K200D will stand up to rain, mist, dust, moisture (humidity) while you can literally run the K10D/K20D under a faucet (and the president of Pentax USA had a youtube video of his K10D under the faucet), or throw a bucket of water on it. However, the only spot I could see a real difference in sealing was the battery door on the K200D.
|
|
|
|
|
lvpyne
Sep 30, 2008, 3:49 AM
Post #19 of 43
(12319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2005
Posts: 207
|
I've been really happy with my Nikon D70. I won't rehash the stats of it -- you'll need to weigh the pros and cons for yourself and for what kind of outdoor photography you want to do.
Also, if you're on a budget, I would recommend finding a camera that you like and looking for it on eBay. As a grad student, I definitely could not have afforded a new Nikon, but was able to pick up my D70 for an incredibly good price. (I bought it from a wedding photographer and everything was well cared for and in great condition.)
Just something to think about as you shop around. Oh, and some D70 nature photos to show different detail:
|
|
|
|
|
Maddhatter
Oct 2, 2008, 7:10 AM
Post #20 of 43
(12209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2008
Posts: 1752
|
Sorry, Don't mind me I just want to see how bad this looks next to some really nice shots. It is a junk shot that was shot on junk gear.
(This post was edited by Maddhatter on Oct 2, 2008, 7:27 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
skidawg
Oct 3, 2008, 4:34 AM
Post #21 of 43
(12070 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 171
|
Thanks everyone for the VERY helpful advice, I knew I could count on this community. With my budget and the recent trouble we are having with the economy, my purchase might be even further off than I had hoped...but that's fine...I'd rather wait and save up for quality gear than settle for less now and have to upgrade later. Anyway, that just leaves me more time to research like mad. I've sort of come to settle on the Canon EOS D40 right now though...does that sound like a good choice to everyone? I know these questions are going to be met with a ton of different responses because of brand loyalty and bias towards certain gear and applications...I expect that. Like I said though, I want something for outdoor photography, primarily action stuff...mostly wildlife (so I'd hope for a durable weather resistant body too). Of course crisp quality is a must as well. I guess I'd hope at some point down the line to get a 400mm lense too, so that's something to keep in mind as well. Anyway, thanks again everyone, and I'll keep checking this thread constantly like I have been.
cheers,
Justin
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Oct 4, 2008, 4:14 AM
Post #22 of 43
(12002 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
You can get a used 40d in good shape for around $800 or less. A 400 5.6, or 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS are great lenses for wildlife, and you can find used copies for around 1100, maybe less. In a year, the lenses will probably cost about the same, but the 40d will be down to $600 or less.
I haven't found the whole weather sealing thing to be that big a deal. Only twice in many, many days out have I really needed the weather sealing, so that I could keep shooting. Usually when the weather is crap, the light is crap, and you just end up with rain in the photo. I also use, and have used the non weather sealed bodies without issue in less then prime conditions. If it is really going to be nasty, then just buy one of the rain covers.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Oct 4, 2008, 7:23 AM
Post #23 of 43
(11985 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
wes_allen wrote: If it is really going to be nasty, then just buy one of the rain covers.
I almost bought an olympus E-1 a few years ago for the sealing (and robust build not found in any other sub $4000 cameras at the time).
keep in mind, rain is only one factor. Humidity and DUST are others. As are spills and we've all spilled something near or on a piece of electronics. Sealed bodies keep that crap out. Dust doesn't just get in during lens changes, it creeps in all the entry points on a camera.
That said, I agree, I've shot a lot in the rain/mist/snow over the years without a sealed body. A little care during and a lot of drying afterwards usually keeps gear running for years.
The difference is sealed bodies give piece of mind, non sealed will probably not fail, but probably is a risky word with $1000+ gear.
I was shooting a softball tournament this summer, and my Nikon and Pentax sealed gear were exposed to pouring rain and heavy drizzle for almost an hour (they don't stop play in weekend tournaments unless it is lightening). Both did fine, although the nikon saw less action because the lens wasn't sealed. In truth it probably wasn't worth exposing my gear for 45 minutes as only 1 shot from that span sold, BUT there was the threat of rain with some isolated showers the entire weekend, and while the rain shots didn't make me any money, the whole weekend did without worring about if I was going to loose $2000 in camera gear to make a few hundred dollars.
In the end sealed gear last longer and is probably better built because tolerances must be tight.
|
|
|
|
|
skidawg
Oct 5, 2008, 12:56 AM
Post #24 of 43
(11938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 171
|
So does anyone know how well the Canon EOS 40D is sealed? It is apparently sealed to a certain extent, but for the life of me I can't find to what extent it truly is weather resistant/proof. With an item of this price I don't want to have to worry about it (too much). I do a lot of mountaineering, hiking, and skiing, and in these sports it's not uncommon to get caught in a mist, rain, or even blizzard. I have a little pocket Kodak that I've carried with me on every outdoor adventure and it's still working...but it was also cheap, and on clearance so I never really had to worry about it like I would a dSLR.
cheers,
Justin
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Oct 5, 2008, 6:50 AM
Post #25 of 43
(11910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
The 40D has a seal on the CF card door, but it's not fully sealed. For instance the K20D has 72 seals, the Canon 1DMII has about 72 seals. I don't know the seals on the D200/D300 off hand, but again, it's fully sealed.
This was a nifty way to compete with the D300/E-3/K20D without spending the money on actually sealing it (it's why I'm not a huge Canon fan, I always feel like they hold back a little bit to make you buy the next model up, it's not that they don't make equally good gear which I think Wes tends to think is my impression).
It's what Sony (similar sealing on the A700) calls "environmental sealing", although Sony does have a few more seals than the card door.
Anyway, since MOST non sealed cameras will not fail due to moisture or dust, it would stand to say the 40D basic sealing is plenty.
If you want/need more, and you are like me and think the best shots are those made in adverse weather, than you might want to consider the other truly sealed cameras.
While I shoot Pentax and Nikon, you should seriously look at the Olmypus E-3 (or even a used E-1 for the near future). The E3 is fully sealed.
I know Canon people rave about the focus speed of their cameras, but take a look at the speeds of the E-3 with a SWD lens attached. Rated as the fasted AF system ever. And not by Oly users, by independent test in every major online and printed publication.
Oly SWD lenses are all sealed, largely hand built, and the glass is hand polished rather than fully machine polished, and compare the price to the similar Canon/Nikon glass.
Compare the Zuiko 50-200 2.8-3.5 SWD to the Canon 70-200 IS L.
The Zuiko 300mm 2.8 is a $5000 lens, but gives the equivalent of a 600mm FOV. So you need to compare it in price to either the Canon 400mm f/4 or 600mm f/5.6 to get an idea how it looks through the finder.
One thing about the Olympus cameras is that they have a short film register, which means that you can (with adapters) mount just about any brand lens to the cameras (aside from Canon which also has a short register). So you aren't limited to Zuiko glass only upfront.
http://www.cameraquest.com/adapt_olyE1.htm
The 4/3 system is also setup to more closely match standard print sizes, so you aren't cropping off so much for final print output.
|
|
|
|
|
atlnq9
Oct 9, 2008, 2:12 AM
Post #26 of 43
(3803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2007
Posts: 111
|
I have to second pico23, Pentax is great in the slr photo market.
They just didn't push for the publicity and reputation of Canon and Nikon.
Canon and Nikon are probably nicer for action sports and wildlife because they make great 400-600mm lenses.
I used to have a good rig of canon 35mm equipment all L lenses... After a 2 week climbing trip developed all the slides and found them all to be scratched by a loose camera part. Body was still under (Edit: warranty) but canon wouldn't believe me and wouldn't talk to me about a warenty repair, I just had a bad customer service and won't ever go back to them.
Any camera can break but what makes it ok is good customer service.
If I ever switch from my 6x7 Mamiya rangefinder it will be to Pentax or Nikon. But right now you still can't get the resolution of the 6x7mm slides in a portable digital or at an affordable price, then who needs wall sized prints anyway.
(This post was edited by atlnq9 on Oct 9, 2008, 3:02 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
asiaclimber
Oct 9, 2008, 2:50 AM
Post #27 of 43
(3797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2007
Posts: 214
|
i secund on the dust removal. anti shake lens is a really nice option aswell.
|
|
|
|
|
skidawg
Oct 11, 2008, 12:31 AM
Post #28 of 43
(3774 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 171
|
The more research I do, the more I find myself going back to the canon eos 40d. One that I've been looking at as well however is the Nikon D90 (the D300 would be best of course but I'm not going that high in price). Does anyone have any experience with thsi camera (any input on it's weather resistance?). I'd like a good comparison with the 40D but haven't found that so far since the 50D is more in it's release period. I plan to probably sell my camcorder to get this camera so the video feature is a nice feature but not something I would use as a deciding factor. Anyway...got to get back to work, my break's up. Thank you all again for the very helpful advice.
cheers,
Justin
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Oct 11, 2008, 3:08 AM
Post #29 of 43
(3763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
skidawg wrote: The more research I do, the more I find myself going back to the canon eos 40d. One that I've been looking at as well however is the Nikon D90 (the D300 would be best of course but I'm not going that high in price). Does anyone have any experience with thsi camera (any input on it's weather resistance?). I'd like a good comparison with the 40D but haven't found that so far since the 50D is more in it's release period. I plan to probably sell my camcorder to get this camera so the video feature is a nice feature but not something I would use as a deciding factor. Anyway...got to get back to work, my break's up. Thank you all again for the very helpful advice. cheers, Justin
The 40D has a seal on the CF card door, but it's not fully sealed. For instance the K20D has 72 seals, the Canon 1DMII has about 72 seals. I don't know the seals on the D200/D300 off hand, but again, it's fully sealed.
I've seen nothing to indicate the D90 is sealed in any way. I looked at the D90/D300 comarative specs and the D300 is till a better camera (IMO).
I don't remember off hand if the D90 had a full functional lens mount but the D300 does. This is, IMO, worth paying more for as you can save money long term on glass with more options.
(This post was edited by pico23 on Oct 11, 2008, 6:50 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
mattmaxwell
Oct 18, 2008, 11:39 AM
Post #30 of 43
(3709 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2008
Posts: 23
|
For what it's worth, I have 2 Canon DSLRs--the entry level XT and the 40D, with several lenses. I love both in different ways; and hate them as well. The XT is light and easy to carry but feels cheeply made; the 40D is heavy and meaty, but the self-cleaning sensor is an absolute joke.
For wildlife and sports, Canon seems to have the upper hand, especially with their lenses. Check out what the photographers are using at sporting events--most all are shooting with Canon. But...yeah...those big honkin' white lenses are several thousand dollars.
Anyway, with the market as it is, you can't go wrong with any of the DSLRs, though the aftermarket seems to have more accessories for Canon and Nikon than Sony, Kodak, or Olympus.
And though I do stand behind my Canon equipment, I think if I were to start all over I'd go with Nikon. (A friend with a Nikon D50 took a fully automatic landscape pic, and I did the same with my 40D. I preferred the colors of his.)
www.flickr.com/photos/zrx1200r
|
|
|
|
|
apoorva
Oct 18, 2008, 12:25 PM
Post #31 of 43
(3705 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 80
|
I have a Canon setup. The (now) older XTi body, which is small and light, and a bunch of canon L series lenses, which are absolutely great.
Without getting drawn into an argument, i had the Pentax K20D which i subsequently sold to get my canon gear.
I'm getting very intrigued by the new Panasonic Lumix G1, which is a new "micro 4/3rds" system - using new interchangeable lenses MUCH smaller than a regular 35mm D / SLR's, sort of like a small lightweight digital rangefinder replacement. Looks like the right direction for lightweight outdoor photography to me.
As for weatherproofing - if you're not going swimming, carry some gaffer's tape and a couple of plastic bags. Or one of those cheap underwater-photography plastic bags some companies make (I'm not talking about the expensive casings)
|
|
|
|
|
skidawg
Oct 20, 2008, 6:07 AM
Post #32 of 43
(3667 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 171
|
Thanks again for all of your responses, they are all very helpful. I was actually able to go to Best Buy the other day and compare the camera's I've been researching. I was drawn to the Canon 40D from the beginning, and keep going back to it. I liked the feel of it the best as well, but am a little put off by it's weight (although I am aware that this is a compromise I will need to accept to an extent). I was hoping to put this off as a deciding factor so I could just use my point-n-shoot for hiking/mountaineering, but now I'm wondering if I could get something that is light enough for that sort of thing. Nikon seemed to excel in that respect with their older cameras (as well as Canon, but I'm less impressed with theirs because I am attracted to the quick reference display the Nikon's have on the top).
The 90D is attractive because it's lighter, and has a video feature, but it seemed to have more trouble (than the Canon 40D and Nikon 300D ) focusing in auto mode...although it could have been the lens?
Mattmaxwell, I really appreciated your post comparing the 40D with the D50. Although the Canon 40D is my favorite so far (although I do have some things on the Nikon's I would like to see on the Canon's)...I am wondering if I should be looking for a lower price scale. I've been sticking with canon because of what I've been hearing about their telephoto lenses but for a good price, I suppose Nikon might be a good choice as well? Anyway, I have become more and more concerned with my ability to financially cover a cost like this due to our economic troubles, and am either going to have to put this off for years, sell items I already own, or take a few steps down from the 40D.
For me, it's hard to take a few steps down because it's already so expensive to begin with (might as well pay the extra dollar and have no regrets has always been my view) but I need to be more realistic here I think. I really want to do wildlife most, so in the long run I would like to have a good telephoto lens. Having a screen at the top of the camera is a feature I would really like as well, ability to take quick pictures (4-6.5fps), and having high ISO (1600 with little noise preferred) are all important things to me.
Anyway, I'm rambling on, and just need to get some sleep. Thanks all, and keep'em commin' if you get'em.
cheers,
Justin
|
|
|
|
|
mattmaxwell
Oct 20, 2008, 2:55 PM
Post #33 of 43
(3654 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2008
Posts: 23
|
I presume all the DSLRs will shoot ISO1600. The Canon 40D will shoot 3200; the high-end Nikons can shoot 6400.
Whichever camera you opt for, my suggestion is to buy online, like from adorama.com or bhphotovideo.com -- you'll get a better deal than what Best Buy or Circuit City will give you. I saved about $400 on my 40D kit...and still got a 3-yr warranty.
I understand your dilemmas. I want the 5D or MarkII...but I really should buy another lens or two, plus I'm needing flash equipment.....
Good luck.
m
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Oct 21, 2008, 8:16 AM
Post #34 of 43
(3627 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
"For wildlife and sports, Canon seems to have the upper hand, especially with their lenses. Check out what the photographers are using at sporting events--most all are shooting with Canon. But...yeah...those big honkin' white lenses are several thousand dollars. "
I'll bet you your kit (which I'll promptly Ebay) that this is quickly changing.
For instance at the NY Penn league all-star game ONLY MLB.com was shooting Canon. At the AHL All-Star game again, most photographers (aside from the official AHL outfit) were shooting Nikon.
All the freelancers and the team photogs, and the local papers were shooting Nikon at both events.
My guess is MLB.com isn't about to switch $10,000 lenses out on a whim. The MLB.com photog was using 400mm 2.8 btw right up until the awards when he switched to a 50mm 1.4.
One thing to note about the AHL All-Star game. The official photog outfit had the arena strobed. Meaning, they were shooting at ISO 200-400 and f/5.6 so it was irrelevant if camera A had better high ISO, as it wasn't relevant.
Anyway, most photographers with Olympic press credentials aren't freelancers, so it's not suprising to still see more Canon when Nikon has clearly beat Canon in the last 2 years in product design. But the entrenchment of the major news outfits in Brand A or Brand B is why there is still an overwhelming majority of Canon gear at the magazine and salaried photographer end of the PJ market.
SI provides it's equipment, as do most news papers. These journalism outfits just can't drop a brand that is subsidizing them, and that they have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear from. They'll get hosed on the selloff. However, if their photogs begin complaining that the gear they have isn't getting the shot when the other guys stuff is, well, they will begin to retool.
BTW, Kodak no longer makes DSLRs. Not sure why as they were either Nikon or Canon mount full frame cameras that if you do a little research on actually had a pretty strong following (although it seemed like with most cameras, people either loved them or hated them, oddly it seems more loved them, which makes me wonder why Kodak ditched the DSLR market). In the wedding market they were well liked though.
One other thing, if you shoot RAW, the colors are irrelevant. I'd be willing to bet my gear (which you could promptly ebay) that you and anyone else could not tell the difference between 2 RAW files of different brands at a nominal ISO (like say under 400). And above 400 it would still be tough till about 1600 when the men get separated from the boys. The RAW data coming out of these cameras is so similar you'd be shocked. Then again, when chatting with people about megapixels at home, I often ask them to point out which photos on my wall are 3MP, 6MP, 10MP, and 14MP. Believe it or not, rarely can they separate the 6, 10, 14...they 3MP is usually the easiest but then it was shot at ISO 800 so it's sort of a giveaway against the others shot at 400 and below!
|
|
|
|
|
mattmaxwell
Oct 21, 2008, 1:55 PM
Post #35 of 43
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2008
Posts: 23
|
My mistake on mentioning Kodak. I knew better. Lack of sleep, I suppose; or too much sambuca in my bloodstream.....
Interesting comments about the AHL. Complete news to me.
I have heard (from a reputable source) Nikon has some technology, soon-to-be-released, that could practically bury their competitors. Something about lenses that film/shoot in HDR......
And, yes, you're correct about RAW and megapixels. I too encounter people interested only in the high MP count, not understanding it has little to do with the actual quality of the photo.
[Sorry. No bets. I only bet on things I can somewhat control: 9 ball, darts, liar's poker..... ]
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Oct 22, 2008, 1:02 AM
Post #36 of 43
(3585 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
All good points above. Personally, the only two camera outfits that I would consider in today's market are Nikon and Canon. Between the two, they have over 80% of the market.
I choose Nikon because of how it fits my hand. I also like where the controls are. My good friend is a dedicated Canon shooter for the same reason.
Both lines offer excellent lens with great variety. Both have strong warranties, and both have worldwide services.
Want to know what camera to shoot, go to a camera store and hold each body.
My two cents
Eman
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Oct 22, 2008, 10:50 PM
Post #37 of 43
(3562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
mattmaxwell wrote: My mistake on mentioning Kodak. I knew better. Lack of sleep, I suppose; or too much sambuca in my bloodstream..... Interesting comments about the AHL. Complete news to me. I have heard (from a reputable source) Nikon has some technology, soon-to-be-released, that could practically bury their competitors. Something about lenses that film/shoot in HDR...... And, yes, you're correct about RAW and megapixels. I too encounter people interested only in the high MP count, not understanding it has little to do with the actual quality of the photo. [Sorry. No bets. I only bet on things I can somewhat control: 9 ball, darts, liar's poker..... ]
Well the news about the AHL was first hand, take a look at my Flickr stream under the tag AHL or All-Star...no lies in my photos.
The official photogs were "Just Sports" out of Hershey PA I believe. They were shooting Canon. So all isn't lost if you get a hardon seeing white lenses. Of course, they didn't have any sort of motor drives as it was all strobed. They had 2 sets of strobes, one permanent and one brought in from Hershey. So they could fire 2 shots at a time. Kinda reduced the 1DMII to a joke. But I'm sure the images were amazing at low ISO and decent DOF.
Anyway, those strobes ruined about 20% of my shots including Rob Schremps lacross style goal in the OT shootout. F'ing amazing!!! But toasted by the strobes.
Really I have no stake in any company.
I'm quite happy to shoot whatever is best for the job at hand. My next compact will be a Panasonic LX3, after my last was a Canon G series. I just like to set the record straight. These internets (as W would say) are a breeding ground of misinformation.
|
|
|
|
|
mattmaxwell
Oct 23, 2008, 12:22 AM
Post #38 of 43
(3559 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2008
Posts: 23
|
appreciate the info.
glanced at your flickr. think i added you as a contact, but things have been mentally hazy the last week. will check again in a few days...if i don't go out climbing this wknd.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Oct 23, 2008, 1:04 AM
Post #39 of 43
(3556 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
pico23 wrote: mattmaxwell wrote: My mistake on mentioning Kodak. I knew better. Lack of sleep, I suppose; or too much sambuca in my bloodstream..... Interesting comments about the AHL. Complete news to me. I have heard (from a reputable source) Nikon has some technology, soon-to-be-released, that could practically bury their competitors. Something about lenses that film/shoot in HDR...... And, yes, you're correct about RAW and megapixels. I too encounter people interested only in the high MP count, not understanding it has little to do with the actual quality of the photo. [Sorry. No bets. I only bet on things I can somewhat control: 9 ball, darts, liar's poker..... ] Well the news about the AHL was first hand, take a look at my Flickr stream under the tag AHL or All-Star...no lies in my photos. The official photogs were "Just Sports" out of Hershey PA I believe. They were shooting Canon. So all isn't lost if you get a hardon seeing white lenses. Of course, they didn't have any sort of motor drives as it was all strobed. They had 2 sets of strobes, one permanent and one brought in from Hershey. So they could fire 2 shots at a time. Kinda reduced the 1DMII to a joke. But I'm sure the images were amazing at low ISO and decent DOF. Anyway, those strobes ruined about 20% of my shots including Rob Schremps lacross style goal in the OT shootout. F'ing amazing!!! But toasted by the strobes. Really I have no stake in any company. I'm quite happy to shoot whatever is best for the job at hand. My next compact will be a Panasonic LX3, after my last was a Canon G series. I just like to set the record straight. These internets (as W would say) are a breeding ground of misinformation.
While we disagree often here, I have to say I agree with you post this time.
Best camera for the job, 100% agree.
misinformation- 150% agree
Good to see you started updating your blog again too.
Cheers
Eman
|
|
|
|
|
error
Nov 6, 2008, 6:48 AM
Post #40 of 43
(3428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2008
Posts: 69
|
Well, whatever you get, have a look at one of these Russian lenses:
http://lzos.ru/en/index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=2
Their Rubinar and Peleng series seem to be quite capable optics, especially for the price 
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Dec 2, 2008, 6:58 PM
Post #41 of 43
(3113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
"Best" is a bad thought to have: there are many good, workable solutions
("<item>" is soooo, pre-90s: you don't want no stinkin' <item>, you want solutions!)
to your needs. E.g., some bodies give anti-shake; other makers increasingly have
that function in lenses; the former will give the benefit to old lenses, but if
you're going to fill needs well enough from new, it's irrelevant.
Self-cleaning sensors? --just read one guy's dismissal of that as motly market
hype: works only so well, and Real(tm) cleaning will be needed anyway.
Weather sealing: well, maybe you can get add-on protection? --or otherwise
avoid taking a swim, and might not find really bothersome weather a great
photographing draw anyway, so ... irrelevant.
Long (telephoto) lenses: heck, that takes all the thrill & skill out of hunting the
great shot--improve your stalking & cam-you-flage!
guangzhou wrote: ... the only two camera outfits that I would consider in today's market are Nikon and Canon. Between the two, they have over 80% of the market.
This almost sounds like --from one perspective-- a good reason to EXCLUDE them:
variety is the spice of life! And I'm bothered a bit by how much seeming
gaming goes on in camera development towards "price points" vs. something
more fundamental & relevant to actual use. (The "D40x" seems to have been
a we-need-to-have-TEN-megaWooers in our bottom end, quick! in order
to stave of megaWooers from swooning over others' 10mp vs. our entry
level D40 6mp. (Though you can see comments from actual users who own
several pricey cameras but say they find the D40 (sometimes older D50)
being what they reach for often).)
It suits me very much to have Pentax, Sony (who has made Nikon's sensors), Olympus,
and ... viable in the market; and maybe to see CanoNikon cool down their
multi-product lines to fewer, and work on & cheapen their lenses.
(Some current grumblings re Canon QA on lenses, interestingly!?)
In reply to: ... hold each body. My two cents
Is that the right way to choose a girlfriend, btw?
  
(This post was edited by knudenoggin on Dec 2, 2008, 7:11 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Dec 3, 2008, 9:14 AM
Post #42 of 43
(3090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: This almost sounds like --from one perspective-- a good reason to EXCLUDE them:
Unfortunately my brain works like this...if item A holds 75% of the market, I assume item B that holds 10% wants to take a bit out of item A market share, thus it sells a better product at a lower price! It offers better quality, over builds, and over specs just to get a look! Then it gradually (no idea where quality came from) catches up in share till it is complacent in it's place and product C has a shot to move in!
Hey, might not be true 100% of the time, but it is more often than not!
And it fosters competition...the sale you DON'T give to #1 if options 2,3 and 4 are just as good means #1 must offer more for less, and so must 2,3,4.
Look at the 5D for example, if Nikon hadn't released the D700 how much longer would canon have sold the 5D? Who knows, but you did end up with a great new 5DII after the D700 was announced! Kinda ironic, or perhaps Canon was raking in profits on 4 year old tech while waiting on the competition to catch up!
Thus, i usually look at the top few, but then I also look at the best of the rest, to see what my options are, and often I go with the best of the rest for the above reason!
(This post was edited by pico23 on Dec 3, 2008, 11:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Dec 3, 2008, 6:50 PM
Post #43 of 43
(3076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
pico23 wrote: Who knows, but you did end up with a great new 5DII after the D700 was announced!
And great deals on "old" great 5Ds being upgraded ... .
(e.g. $2100 for 5D + 24-105 L f/4(?) )
(-;
|
|
|
|
|
|
