Equipment DSLR's - the best, or not?

I understand how focal lengths and FOV work, I was just curious as to whether the new crop of dSLR-specific lenses were now rated in what the camera saw (including the 1.6x magnification), or still what a 35mm frame would see. Thank you for answering, by the way, I was really confused and tired. Naps are great.

Damn.

I saw, but I'm going to wait for reviews. I like the A700, too, although Sony always has pissed me off.

I definitely agree with you, my friend's 18-135 is good, but it does some things badly. I would not get the 18-200 as any specific lens (macro, telephoto), because it's not going to do anything perfectly. I'm looking for a single lens that works great when I'm on the road (MAYBE two). The issue is how much I would want to lug around, and if an 18-200 can do 95% of the things I want to do at 85% goodness, then I'm satisfied. I could then get a 50mm macro, a billion-mm telephoto, a nice wide-angle, but all for times when I don't have to measure what I bring onboard a plane, and with me on a mountain.

I appreciate that, I was liking the ~650USD price, but if it has no future with lenses or bodies, I'm not going to invest.


So, any thoughts on dSLR vs. P+S, either, both? Will the D80 (or a mid-range camera of its ilk, 40D, whatever) be worth its weight in gold, so to speak, with picture quality? Perhaps a lighter, cheaper dSLR with quality glass in front of it? Will I really be happier bringing around a dSLR than a P+S, given it's a once in a lifetime experience in a beautiful place with cool stuff and awesome things to take pictures of (including the friend I'm specifically going to visit, if you know what I mean )? By the way, I am purchasing new and digital, just to clear that up. No film, no need for backwards compatibility with full-frame cameras, no need to save money for that. My budget is between 1000 and 1500 for a camera and lens(es) if it's a dSLR, and who knows for a P+S.

 

Sounds to me like you should rather get a video camera and a tripod

Back to topic:
I think you should spend all the money on the dslr venture and not waste anything on a p&s. Use a good all-round lens like the 18-200 and use the dslr at all possible occasions.

Just my 2 euro cents

 

I like my A700.
Yeah, Sony do have a habit of rubbing people the wrong way (incl. me) but they do appear to be learning the DSLR market pretty quickly & well.
btw there will be an A300 shortly too , then the A900 & rumours of a 5th body keep surfacing.

what you get as you move up the price scale in bodies are better build quality & more features, IQ doesn't really change that much (until you hit the Pro level gear & FF).

Glass is very important but I suspect that in Alaska you probably also want a sturdy body with reasonable if not 100% weather sealing.
The bargain at the moment for that would probably be the Pentax K10D (due for replacement).

 

Ahh I see the question now. And the answer is no. When talking about digital only lenses (DX and EF-S range) the focal lengths are not converted to reflect the multiplier. So while my 50-150/2.8 has the FOV of a 75-225/2.8, the physical distance measured is 50mm - 150mm from the film plane to the nodal point, depending on the zoom setting. What you will find is that they are changing the standard DX lens "ranges" to more closely reflect what the popular ones were on film. Using my 50-150 again, it fits into the DX line up where the 70-200 was. My 17-55 works out to a 25-82, and replaces the 24/28-70 range that was very popular with journalists.

 

Didn't mean you Jumeira, but the people I've seen on other forums who try to convince people that you shouldn't buy an 18-200 because a set of f/2.8 zooms will do the job better!

 

Bah. So you're saying that because we can't have a 24 megapixel 4/3's camera that it's not worth buying one? That makes no sense. For one, no-one save for an uber-professional needs that amount of megapixels. Unless you're trying to sell ginormous prints, there's no point in having more than 10 megapixels. It's easiest to think about it this way. You can buy a 60" HDTV that has a resolution of 1920x1080. It looks excellent from 6 feet away, which is where you're going to view it from anyway. The same goes for prints. You can make a 20x30 from my E-510's 3648x2736 images that looks excellent from any normal viewing distance. Yes, a 24 megapixel camera would make a 20x30 that you could look at from 4", but when do you look at a 20x30 from 4" away except when you're telling your buddies about how many megapixels your camera has. Either way, saying the 4/3's mount is not going to be viable for much longer actually should make it more enticing. If they stop producing 4/3's cameras, all the excellent 4/3's lenses will drastically come down in price. Sorry for the rant.

 

I wish...

See, the issue isn't budget. I'm quite capable of purchasing a Powershot G9 and a 5D or D300 with great lenses and an XH-A1 for videos (although I'd basically be completely broke and screwed afterwards). There's just no reason to! I'm limiting myself to $1000-1500 for lens(es)+body because I'm not stupid. I don't need to blow a large chunk of change on a camera that would be total overkill for me and my dad to use. I'm only going as high as $1000-1500 because I know that lenses can be expensive, and even that figure is a bit of a stretch. The point is, bodies become obsolete, lenses I can move camera to camera. Money-wise, just think about the dSLR. Don't factor in anything else, just lenses and bodies. I've talked it over with my mother, and the SD800 is starting to badly flake out, so the P+S would be purchased on her dime, so to speak. Our Sony DV Megapixel Handycam is basically useless, as about a quarter of the sensor has massive amounts of corruption that will appear in the middle of footage unpredictably, so my dad is more than happy to buy the HDV camera. That's why I need dSLR recommendations, because I've seen some of the work you guys do, and it's phenomenal, so you must know SOMETHING.

I've seen that they're really moving forward, the Konica Minolta guys are just pushing them onwards. I just am unsure about investing in the Sony stuff if it's completely incompatible with everything else. Hm, I guess that's true with everything, huh.

That is most definitely true. I have sample images with the exact same lens from basically every low- to mid-range Nikon in the past few years, D40, D80, D70, D200 even, and other than features, the pictures are almost identical. That's why I want a good balance of comfort, usability, features, and price.

I was looking at the Pentax, but it's been out for a while, so I really would like something newer on the body. Plus, I don't like the Pentax lens selection.

Haha, I see your point, but the issue that I've seen with the tiny pixels is corruption and dust. I'm uncomfortable with that level of pixel density (personally), plus I definitely think that the 4/3's system would leave me high and dry if something happens. However, it's still an option, just thinking about it.


Thanks for all of your input. However, going back to my original question, based on a budget of $1000-1500, what dSLR body and lens(es) would you recommend? Specifically, should I take a dSLR to Alaska, or will it be too heavy? Will the shots be of a high enough quality compared to a P+S (IE, will I like the manually composed shots better) that a 3-5 lb (or more) camera is worth lugging around? I think you guys get what I'm asking, so fire away. And yes, it is always a possibility to snag my mother's P+S for the 2 weeks in addition to a dSLR, for quick shots. Thanks, y'all!


(It's scary how much you guys know. The photo teacher at my school, a really smart guy, is just clueless on this. He doesn't understand the concept of having to hike or walk with a camera. Weird. )

 

I agree with your point about what is about 10Mp being enough, I pay my rent with 10Mp. But you also have to face the hard fact as to where the market is heading. dSLR's are now moving into the resolution of a medium format digital back. Whether or not we NEED it is moot, it's happening. And as it happens, there is a finite (not taking into account a massive tech shift) pixel density that is able to produce a good image. Granted the huge Mp counts are now only seen in the flagship studio cameras. The 1DMkIII and D3 are still hovering in the 10-12Mp range. But the 1DsMkIII is already at 24Mp and the next Nikon looks to be up there too. That will trickle down to the rest of the line in the next 2-3 years. Look at the D40 and 400D. The sensors in them are rivaling my D200. It will happen. And the 4/3 system is hampered by the sensor size. Sorry. A 4/3's sensor at 14-16Mp on paper has.....issues.

So yes, if you are looking to invest in a system today for the long term, then the 4/3rds is likely a dead end. If you can afford to shift your investment at sometime in the future....then that is different. If there is a giant leap in CCD, LBCAST and CMOS tech, then I might be wrong. But I'm not knocking the camera, I'm sure it takes as good a picture as anything out there. And I certainly find outdated cameras a pleasure to use. I was using a Kodak 14/n the other day and the images are just as good as my D200's, better even-colorwise. But I wouldn't sink money into it any more then my Pentax Spotmatic II.

Such is technology.

 

As you are truly saying yourself bodies become obsolete while the lenses can be carried along.
From that standpoint I would recommend that you get either a Canon or a Nikon. I'm on Canon myself but wouldn't hesitate to recommend Nikon.
My parents have the Nikon D200 and I have to say that the user experience is really great. It's good quality and functions are easily accesible. More than on the Canon 350D that I'm using.

Now the part about "knowing something"... I think it's called experience.
Get your DSLR in gooooooood time before you leave and go use it AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
The more you know your camera the better the pictures you'll be able to take.
As you'll most likely get a DSLR with a 1.6 factor get yourself a good low f-stop wide-angle lens for those landscape shots. And a proper tripod.

I think you're partly trying to have someone come tell you "Buy this, this and this. End of discussion". And I don't think it's going to happen because there will always be choices and compromises.

My honest opinion isn't technical and about what specific lenses and bodies will give you what but more that you make a decision and start getting to know the camera and lenses you end up purchasing. This is ever more important than whether you get 17 or 18mm or other minute specifics.

Edit: Oh and if you don't get a P+S you don't have to drag around two cameras. Plus being forced to use the DSLR will only be a good thing if you can get yourself convinced to bring it with you.

 

If you are buying all new and want lenses that you can carry onto new bodies, I think Canon or Nikon are the best bets. They have the largest offer on lenses and there is a huge used market aswell. So future is as good as it can get.

In your case, if I were buying new and had a large budget. I think I would be looking at this:
40D; EF-s 10-22 (landscapes), EF-s 17-55 F2.8 IS (standard), EF 50 F1.4 (portrait), 430EX flash, OC-E2 flash cable.

I know the whole dilemma with the EF-s lenses, but the 10-22 is (in my opinion) the best UltraWide angle lens and I've heard alot of good things about the 17-55 .. on paper that lens is just fantastic F2.8 & IS. So unless you want to get a 5D, I think this would make a good set. It won't fit your budget though.

Hope that helps?
And don't forget a tripod..

 

Yup, Canon mount lenses don't fit Nikons either

Even as it stands (& without considering s/h Minolta gear) I would say that Sony's system is the 3rd largest & it's only getting bigger.
What it's missing at the moment is very specialised & very expensive gear & some of that could be that they are redesigning old Minolta designs (like the 600mm f4) that used to be handmade for mass manufacture.
In terms of consumer lenses now it's very good (apart from a gap ~400mm but there is rumoured to be an 80-400mm on the way).

Given that weight/space is obviously a concern you probably want to consider a superzoom - Nikon's 18-200mm is highly rated, Canon seem to have a gap in their line up & in Sony terms the 18-250mm (much better than the 18-200mm) & the 16-105mm are both good.

 

Hey, so if luck is on my side, I should be getting a brand new Olympus E-510 with FL-36 or FL-50 flash, probably the 2-lens kit. On the advice of my father, I'm going to start out with a relatively cheap but fun/useful dSLR, and then move up after college. I agree with my dad that in college, the crappier/more beat up my camera is, the less likely it is to be stolen. Also, since the Alaska trip will involve a lot of hiking, I'll probably take the old SD800IS (it's alive!) for pocket shots, and the dSLR for everything else. The E-510 is nice and light and compact, if memory serves, and since I'm not buying too heavily into the lens format, if at all, I should be OK. Thanks for all of your advice, and if anyone has anything else to add, I'm always happy to listen (read?)!

 

interesting, but if you want your new cam to be a stepping stone, why not figure out what system you're likely to stick with and then buy a 2nd hand body and lenses? that way you can keep the lenses and you won't lose so much money. you can get 2nd hand older canon/nikon bodies for some bargainous prices if you know where to look (fredmiranda!!)

 

Like Johnny said in the above post, check out the Alpha...even better if you have a shop close bring your old konica's down there and see if your able to mount them (although you most likely wont have AF, at least you will have Sony's built in IS/SSS). If they don't let you, call Sony's tech support and ask. Also, check out the G9...You will be surprised at how much it doesn't feel or act like a p&s. It is a very good camera and often is the choice for those who cant swing a DSLR and a set of lenses. You can even mount a 420EX on top if your feeling frisky. Check her out, you wont be disappointed.

 

After a 40D and a EF-s 17-55 2.8, you have already broken the bank @ around $2200. Basically, you cant afford a 40D with your budget, since it is a $1200 body...well thats not entirely true...you could still swing a 50 1.8! Anyways, in all honesty I would stay away from Olympus. If you plan to invest invest in Canon or Nikon. They have been leading the DSLR industry since it hit the floor and you cannot beat the quality they produce. Also, keep in mind that in less than 2 weeks PMA arrives in Las Vegas, where the unveiling of new technologies and equipment will occur. Since there is likely a replacement for the 400D, the prices on that body should drop within a matter of weeks, if not days which should give you a little more leeway for decent glass.

Edit: where in Jersey are you? If you are close to Edison I can highly recommend checking out Abes Of Maine. Most of their prices cannot be beat, not even by B&H/Adorama.

 

On the contrary, Nikon lenses DO mount on Canon bodies

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html

 

They won't fit - Minolta AF mount will fit but not Konica.

that's not the contrary of my statement ...

anyway, you can make virtually lens fit on another mount if you are willing to either engineer it specially or buy an adapter & in most cases put up with losing features like AF, AE.

 

If you were to say that canon lenses will not mount on Nikon bodies, the contrary statement would be that Nikon lenses will fit on Canon bodies....with contrary meaning 'the opposite' and all.

Of course you need an adapter to make this happen but to make a statement claiming one brands lens will not fit on another brands body is completely false, lack of AF or not. It happens and it happens quite often. Especially in cases of Nikon's W/A's and primes on Canon bodies.

 

Yeah, but for all practical purposes (at least among normal people), Canon lenses stick on Canon bodies and Nikon lenses stick on Nikon bodies.

 

Did you look at the link??? Practical or not, many people utilize Nikon glass on Canon bodies, after all if its premium IQ your after (or you previously own good Nikon glass and would hate to part with it) why not. I am sure some will opt for the 14-24 2.8 just because of that test, not saying I would...I'll stick to direct compatibility for now. Anyways, the point of the post was to convey the fact that it CAN be and IS done whether well received or not. For lack of argument, is that agreeable?