|
|
|
|
atlnq9
Oct 9, 2008, 2:12 AM
Post #26 of 43
(3799 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
(3793 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
(3770 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
(3759 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
(3705 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
(3701 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
(3663 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
(3650 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
(3623 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
(3612 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
(3581 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
(3558 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
(3555 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
(3552 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
(3424 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
(3109 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
(3086 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
(3072 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(?) )
(-;
|
|
|
|
|
|
