Getting a DSLR camera

[Boret]

Nobody tells you this but one more expense, when you really get into a reef tank, is photography.

 

I haven't owned an SLR camera since a long long time ago when I had a Nikon F401 35mm camera with a single lens. That camera got stolen and I never bought another one. Since then I have always used point and shoot digital cameras. They work fine to get some shots here and there, and if you get lucky, sometimes you might get a good shoot. But my experience is that they are horrible to get decent marine pictures. All of the pictures I take of the tank come out really blue, with all the colors washed out.

 

I finally made my mind about getting a DSLR. But I am no photographer, and do not plan on using it for more than reef shots, and a picture here and there. I've been reading here and in several forums about different advice. I read a bunch of Ken Rockwell website (as recommended by Gadgets on a different thread) and he highly recommend the Nikon D40 over more expensive models. Pretty much the best bang for your buck, which is exactly what a want. A good solid DSLR that won't break the bank.

 

I can get a Nikon Refurbished D40 for $375. If I add a lens like the Nikon 55-200mm VR for $250, the total is $625. For $650 I can get it new with that lens.

The other option is to buy it new.

 

The best I can find is $450 at Walmart (online) or $499 at Ritz (local store). I kind of prefer to buy it at the store as they also provide a basic photography course with the purchase plus it is cool to be able to go to the store if I have any questions. Ritz also offers a kit for $649 with the Nikon 55-200mm VR. If I add that lens (Nikon 55-200mm VR for $250) to the refurbished Nikon D49 the total is $625. At that price it doesn't make sense to get the refurbished one.

 

When I went to the store they ask me if I have considered the Canon Rebel XT. I really had not, as I was sold on the Ken Rockwell's review of the D40. I told them about the website and the salesperson told me that Mr. Rockwell is a Nikon man and will always lean towards them.

 

So after I had already made my mind on a camera I went back to the computer and started researching the Canon XT and I see that is has a couple of features that seem better than the D40:

 

1. More megapixels

Canon 10MP vs Nikon 6MP

 

2. Lower ISO

Canon 100 vs Nikon 200

 

3. AntiVibration

Canon comes with VR in the body vs Nikon, can only get it with the extra lens if I get the VR one.

 

4. Live View

I can see the picture I am about to take in the LCD screen vs on the Nikon I can only see it after you take the picture.

 

5. Sensor

Canon uses CMOS vs Nikon CCD (no idea which one is better)

 

6. Focus sensors

Canon 9-point system vs Nikon 3

 

On top of everything I found the Canon for $499 New shipping included. Pretty much the same price as the Nikon.

 

Now the questions that I have:

 

Is it worth it to buy the D40 for $375 refurbished? Will I be able to take decent pictures without adding another lens?

 

If buying new, should I listen to Ken Rockwell even though it seems that the Canon is slightly better? Is it really better or not really?

 

Are there any factors/specs that make a difference for marine pictures and I am not aware of? Such as shutter speed, etc..

 

Will I eventually buy another lens like the 55-200? It seems that the 55-200mm lens will actually help me make better macro shots, at least from further away and help with outdoor shots.

 

What are your thoughts guys?

 

Thanks in advance for all the input.

[Jon Lazar]

Will I eventually buy another lens like the 55-200? It seems that the 55-200mm lens will actually help me make better macro shots, at least from further away and help with outdoor shots.

 

What are your thoughts guys?

 

Thanks in advance for all the input.

 

I'm pretty new to DSLR, but I don't think you're going to be able to take any macro shots with the 55-200 lens. You can take a regular shot with that lens and blow it way up, but it's not going to be very sharp.

 

Jon

[Boret]

Unless you put your camera in a watertight housing and place the camera next to the coral inside the tank it seems that close up macro shots of things inside of the tank is not as much about being able to get too close to the object. The 55-200 lens allows you to close up on a coral in the back of the tank from the front glass, as opposed to the regular 18-55 lens that will only close in 3x. I might have read that completely wrong... in my case, with the corner tank I am looking at being able to take close up pics of corals that are 15-20" away from the front glass. I could perfectly be completely wrong about this though

 

I think I also got my models mixed up. I am referring to the Canon XS and not the XT.

Most online reviews compare the Canon XS with the Nikon D60. But it seems, from what I read at kenrockwell.com that the D40 is actually a better camera than the D60.

 

The other option I didn't mentioned is going one level up into the Canon T1i or the Nikon D5000. For about $250-300 more you get a better body with the possibility to actually take HD video. But then again, every expert says save money on the camera body and spend the $$ in the lenses.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Boret

[dschflier]

Most people I have spoken with that are into photography beyond just the hobby level say that Nikon is just a better made camera. I am far from an expert on this subject but I have heard this with some consistency.

[Boret]

Thanks David. I am kind of leaning towards the Nikon D40. That guy Ken Rockwell raves about it. He consider it better than more expensive Nikon models until you reach the D90. One of my concerns is the lack of "Live View". It means that you don't use the LCD screen to see what you are about to take a picture of, only to review it afterward. My concern with that is going to be White Balancing, exposure and other options which I don't understand that well. If I cannot see how the options affect the picture until I take the picture, it will probably take me a bunch of tries until I get to a setting that provides the best colors. I am also forced to always use the view finder to focus if I use Manual mode. I just don't have the experience to really tell if "Live View" is that important. It is the compact camera user in me that is concern.

 

The 6MP seems to be plenty to get good pictures, and some of the other features like light compensation and Flash Sync make this camera better in some instances than the more expensive siblings (D40x, D60, etc...)

 

I can get it refurbish for $375. Then spend the money in a couple more lenses, like a decent 50-200mm and a macro lens. That seems to be the wise thing to do from what I read. The camera bodies become obsolete quite fast, but lenses retain value and usability for a long time. As a matter of fact, from what I read a newbie mistake is to buy an expensive body and match it with a cheap lens.

 

The pictures I see from Ken Rockwell are fantastic, but there isn't a single one of a coral or a fish. He says this: "My D40 and its included lens is the best camera of which I know for people and family photography." So maybe I am missing some spec that will make the camera better for marine photography. Maybe "Live View" is really important... or maybe once I figure out the White Balance for my tank and lights it is a moot point.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Boret

[lanman]

I am not the expert - but someone will come along and tell the whole story. Macro-zoom, WIDE aperture lens is what you need. Gadgets is probably busy photographing a wedding somewhere - but someone will tell all.

 

bob

[dshnarw]

To be honest, you'll be fine with either the Nikon or the Canon. I personally avoid putting much stock in Ken Rockwell's reviews - he tends to be a bit biased. I do the same for other review sites that tend to be biased the other way as well. I would first recommend going to several review sites. This website will give you a lot of review sites, and point you in the right direction on how to "use" the reviews: http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.05.25...he-review-sites

 

You'll notice that Rockwell's is listed under the "personal" type - his opinion and nothing more. They acknowledge that his personal biases often get in the way of his objectivity. The "hands on" category is probably your best choice for reviews at this stage - they do the technical stuff, and then do real situation testing.

 

 

In terms of gear, no matter the choice of brand, you'll want probably 2 lenses. First, a wider lens in the 17-55mm range to get your full tank shots and partial tank shots. You'll also want a macro lens in the 100mm range for close up shots, or standing back further and shooting the fish. The faster the lenses, the better (f/3.5 is okay, but f/2.8 is better). I generally dont find much use in fish tank photography for the longer end of the zoom range, although I'm sure others probably do. Also, avoid getting too caught up in name brand lenses. Sigma's 105mm macro lens is significantly cheaper than either the Canon or the Nikon, but is as nice as either of them.

 

One thing to note, the Canon does not have vibration reduction (IS for Canon) in the body. I have to disagree with dschflier's assessment of Nikon being a "better made camera". Nikon does some things better, Canon does others. The end result, though, is that both systems are top of the line. If his statement were true, you wouldn't see all those white lenses at the sporting events of the Canon users.

 

If we were simply looking at specs, the Canon wins out - higher resolution, newer autofocus system, better ISO handling. But it's also a matter of how comfortable you are with the system. My recommendation, before you become set on a camera, is to go down to best buy or ritz and hold both cameras, take some test shots, and see which one feels better for you.

 

Hope that helps a bit. I think you'll be happy with either camera choice in the end.

[Jon Lazar]

I've seen the Tamron 105mm f2.8 macro lense at online merchants for around $400 used. It won't autofocus on the d40 body, but it seems like most people prefer to manually focus macros anyway.

 

Nikon also has a new 35mm f1.8 AF-s prime lens that will focus on the d40. They run about $200, but are on a 1-2 month backorder. Can't wait to get mine!

 

Jon

[SteveM]

I have to agree with dshnarw, either a Nikon or a Cannon is a great choice. I personally use Nikon as do some of the other professional photographers on the board. I do not know that much about Cannon but I will say one thing about the Nikons, they are getting more and more expensive. The cost of lenses has skyrocketed. From what I understand the Cannon lenses are not quite expensive but then again it depends on what you get.

 

A good beginner choice in Nikons would be the D5000. I have heard some great things about it as well as being able to shoot video. Nikon has also just released a D3000 which is about $150 less than the D5000.

[gsedlack]

I have a D40 and you can borrow it for a week for a test if you so desire

 

/George

 

Thanks David. I am kind of leaning towards the Nikon D40. That guy Ken Rockwell raves about it. He consider it better than more expensive Nikon models until you reach the D90. One of my concerns is the lack of "Live View". It means that you don't use the LCD screen to see what you are about to take a picture of, only to review it afterward. My concern with that is going to be White Balancing, exposure and other options which I don't understand that well. If I cannot see how the options affect the picture until I take the picture, it will probably take me a bunch of tries until I get to a setting that provides the best colors. I am also forced to always use the view finder to focus if I use Manual mode. I just don't have the experience to really tell if "Live View" is that important. It is the compact camera user in me that is concern.

 

The 6MP seems to be plenty to get good pictures, and some of the other features like light compensation and Flash Sync make this camera better in some instances than the more expensive siblings (D40x, D60, etc...)

 

I can get it refurbish for $375. Then spend the money in a couple more lenses, like a decent 50-200mm and a macro lens. That seems to be the wise thing to do from what I read. The camera bodies become obsolete quite fast, but lenses retain value and usability for a long time. As a matter of fact, from what I read a newbie mistake is to buy an expensive body and match it with a cheap lens.

 

The pictures I see from Ken Rockwell are fantastic, but there isn't a single one of a coral or a fish. He says this: "My D40 and its included lens is the best camera of which I know for people and family photography." So maybe I am missing some spec that will make the camera better for marine photography. Maybe "Live View" is really important... or maybe once I figure out the White Balance for my tank and lights it is a moot point.

[Boret]

To be honest, you'll be fine with either the Nikon or the Canon. I personally avoid putting much stock in Ken Rockwell's reviews - he tends to be a bit biased. I do the same for other review sites that tend to be biased the other way as well. I would first recommend going to several review sites. This website will give you a lot of review sites, and point you in the right direction on how to "use" the reviews: http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.05.25...he-review-sites

 

Thanks man, I was starting to feel the same way. But then I spent 4 straight hours reading dpreview.com and felt that the conclusions didn't have much to do with the final rating. As a matter of fact I read all of the "Top Rated" reviews and all of them ended the same, very good camera, highly recommended, but not as good as the best from the competition. However they didn't provide me with the name of that "best".

 

You'll notice that Rockwell's is listed under the "personal" type - his opinion and nothing more. They acknowledge that his personal biases often get in the way of his objectivity. The "hands on" category is probably your best choice for reviews at this stage - they do the technical stuff, and then do real situation testing.

 

 

In terms of gear, no matter the choice of brand, you'll want probably 2 lenses. First, a wider lens in the 17-55mm range to get your full tank shots and partial tank shots. You'll also want a macro lens in the 100mm range for close up shots, or standing back further and shooting the fish. The faster the lenses, the better (f/3.5 is okay, but f/2.8 is better). I generally dont find much use in fish tank photography for the longer end of the zoom range, although I'm sure others probably do. Also, avoid getting too caught up in name brand lenses. Sigma's 105mm macro lens is significantly cheaper than either the Canon or the Nikon, but is as nice as either of them.

 

Would you go, for example, for the regular canon XS DSLR with 2 lenses (18-55, 75-300) for $699 over the higher up Canon T1i w/ 1 lens for $799, correct? And I am probably looking at at least one more lens for about $200-300 (the wide angle, macro??) so that is money to add to either purchase.

 

One thing to note, the Canon does not have vibration reduction (IS for Canon) in the body. I have to disagree with dschflier's assessment of Nikon being a "better made camera". Nikon does some things better, Canon does others. The end result, though, is that both systems are top of the line. If his statement were true, you wouldn't see all those white lenses at the sporting events of the Canon users.

 

If we were simply looking at specs, the Canon wins out - higher resolution, newer autofocus system, better ISO handling. But it's also a matter of how comfortable you are with the system. My recommendation, before you become set on a camera, is to go down to best buy or ritz and hold both cameras, take some test shots, and see which one feels better for you.

 

Hope that helps a bit. I think you'll be happy with either camera choice in the end.

 

It does help. Thank you very much!!!

I do however fail to see what are the specs that I should be looking for in a camera to take Reef Tank pictures.

There is a Pentax K2000 that has all kinds of filters and white balance options, body shake reduction in body and comes with 2 lenses (18-55, 50-2000) for $599. Now, is this camera going to be that much worse than the Nikon or Canon... or is it a little bit of name brand hype? Gets a good review in dpreviews.com but not the best (again I am not sure what they consider the best )

 

I've seen the Tamron 105mm f2.8 macro lense at online merchants for around $400 used. It won't autofocus on the d40 body, but it seems like most people prefer to manually focus macros anyway.

 

Nikon also has a new 35mm f1.8 AF-s prime lens that will focus on the d40. They run about $200, but are on a 1-2 month backorder. Can't wait to get mine!

 

Jon

 

I hear you Jon, that Ken guy talks about that lens here.

 

I have to agree with dshnarw, either a Nikon or a Cannon is a great choice. I personally use Nikon as do some of the other professional photographers on the board. I do not know that much about Cannon but I will say one thing about the Nikons, they are getting more and more expensive. The cost of lenses has skyrocketed. From what I understand the Cannon lenses are not quite expensive but then again it depends on what you get.

 

A good beginner choice in Nikons would be the D5000. I have heard some great things about it as well as being able to shoot video. Nikon has also just released a D3000 which is about $150 less than the D5000.

 

They told me at Costco that they will have a special on the D5000 next week. In the meantime they have the Canon T1i for $799 (after $300 rebate) with a 18-55mm lens.

That is a step up in camera body for $150 over the D40 with 2 lenses.

 

 

I have a D40 and you can borrow it for a week for a test if you so desire

 

/George

 

Whoa George, that would be awesome! Thank you.

Do you get good tank pictures with the Nikon? Are you happy with it?

[dshnarw]

It really comes down to choosing the specs you want/like and the price you're willing to pay. This is why DPReview and other sites have a hard time saying "this is the best" about any camera in a certain market. Every camera brand will have multiple cameras in your price range, and they all do very slightly different things. The best of those cameras is going to be so closely matched with the best of the other brands that what you intend to do with the camera is the only thing that makes one better than the other.

 

In terms of aquarium photography, good ISO handling is important, good autofocus is always important. You may want to look for higher burst rates to try and get those nice fish "action" shots.

 

From there, I tend to look at other things as add-ons that may or may not be worth it. More megapixels is nice, but not always needed (although high MP cameras are the equivalent of a free macro lens since you can crop in more for the same effect). Live view is another - some people love it, some people just don't use it. I don't care for it much, since it's pretty slow, but I know others who rave about it. HD video is another one. It's coming out on all the new cameras - so, for example, the T1i has it but the XS and XSi don't. Don't expect production quality video, but if you want home movies without buying a separate system, they do a decent job. If you're looking at the camera for trips as well, this might be appealing enough to consider in the final purchase (saves you taking a video cam along too).

 

The Pentax systems get very nice reviews. I don't know the specs on that particular model, but if they stand up to those of the Canon/Nikons in the same price range, then it's not a bad choice. Image stabilization/vibration reduction in the camera body is a nice feature for making lenses cheaper - any Pentax lens that fits the camera will have the system available. It also makes finding lenses less confusing since both Canon and Nikon make the same lens with and without IS/VR. The trade off is that it doesn't work quite as well to have it in the camera body, so you don't get as much of the anti-shake effect as you would with Canon/Nikon. Still, the cash trade off is not a bad one. Make sure you can get potential lenses of interest to fit the camera as well. Pentax and Sony have been up and coming on the DSLR market, so their lens selection is still small, but fast growing.

 

If you choose Canon, I would recommend getting a kit that doesn't include the 75-300. If Canon has a junk lens, that is it. If you're looking at the XS, just find a kit with only the 18-55mm kit lens, and consider adding a 55-250mm lens to your list of future purchases (for both the XS and T1i). Nikon will be the same I'm sure - there's always that one cheap consumer lens that just isn't quite up to par.

 

If there is one thing you should definitely consider, it is spending LESS on the body, MORE on the lenses. Because image quality is your greatest overall concern, the lens is the most important piece of equipment to deal with. Go with the highest quality you can afford here and cut back on the camera body, and you'll still see better results.

 

Sorry I haven't given you a more definite answer to which camera is better, etc., but it almost always comes down to personal taste at this point. The quality differences between brands are so small, and the features vs. cost issue is something that really comes down to your particular budget and goals.

 

I guess if I were to make a checklist of things I'd do, in order, they'd be...

 

1. Choose a brand (take a "feel" test. Most models vary little on the outside within the same manufacturer's lineup, so which system is more comfortable for you?)

 

2. Choose a model (consider cost vs. performance in, for your case, ISO handling, autofocus points, burst rate, and any extras that you happen to like - live view/video.)

 

3. Choose the lenses you need to start out with and make up a wish list. If the camera comes with a kit lens, you've got one out of the way. Generally, you'll want to cover all ranges for aquarium photos - a nice wide angle zoom, a telephoto zoom, and a good macro lens. Consider your budget and possibly changing the camera model to get better versions of these over some extra feature on the camera body. Add on to your wish list something like the 50mm f/1.8, which is usually less than $100 and will serve you very well for aquarium and family photos.

[lanman]

XS, XSI, XT, XTI, T1I...

 

?????????????????

 

I am considering the 'Canon EOS Rebel XS' available at BJ's, for example. Comes with some standard lens (they didn't have the specs posted) for $549. Then I would add a 'Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC HSM Zoom Lens for Canon' for my fish tank photography for $599. Does this sound like a good choice?? Way too much alphabet soup for me to decipher, after 30 years out of 'serious' photography.

 

Is an XS an XS? Does it also have options? i.e. - is there an 'inexpensive, lesser functionality' version? Or is anything that says 'Canon EOS Rebel XS' equal?

 

Thanks,

bob

[Boret]

Thank you dshnarw. That really gives me a lot of information, I appreciate the post.

 

I am currently using a Nikon D40, George (gsedlack) was very kind and let me borrow it. I have taken about 250 pictures in the last 3 hours and even with a Tripod I have trouble focusing or getting sharp pictures. The interesting thing is that I can get great details and sharp focus when I take pics of my dog or macro shots of a coin, but I have trouble with tank pictures. The round glass of the corner tank is an added challenge.

 

I think that being a photo newbie "Live View" might be something that I would like. I just can't tell that well if I focused correctly through the view finder.

Maybe the focus has to do with the lack of AntiVibration on the lens on the Nikon. I tried a few pictures on the Tripod with the Timer to see if I can get better detail.

I am have shot RAW (NEF) pictures and JPEGs in Basic, Normal and Fine.

I am using Adobe Lightroom for processing of RAW pictures. (still learning the tool)

 

It is just unbelievable how good outdoors pictures are with "Auto" on the camera, vs the avg tank picture I getting indoors. As I mentioned in another post it is the Indian and not the arrow. Even the D40 which is the starting DSLR from Nikon has more features that I understand.

 

Costco seems to have some good package deals:

 

Basic DSLR

 

Canon XS $549 with 18-55mm IS lens. 10MP, 2.5 LCD, Live View, 3 Frames/sec, ISO 100-1600

 

Pentax K2000 $599 with 2 lenses (DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL II Lens and DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED Lens), Anti Vibration in body, 3.5 Frames/sec, 10MP, No Live View, ISO 100-3200

 

Canon XSi $679 with 18-55mm IS lens, 12MP, 3" LCD, 3.5 Frames/sec, Live View, ISO 100-1600

 

Step-Up DSLR both record HD video

 

The Canon T1i for $799 with 1 lens (18-55mm IS) and a Color multifunction printer (MP980).

 

That's the price after a $300 rebate. Not crazy about the rebates but that is about the best price I have found for that camera. Not crazy about the printer either... no use for it.

 

Costco also has the Nikon D5000 with 2 lenses (AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED) for $999.

[Boret]

Is this the 50mm lens you are referring to?

 

 

Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D $129.99 Shipped

 

[dshnarw]

XS, XSI, XT, XTI, T1I...

 

?????????????????

 

I am considering the 'Canon EOS Rebel XS' available at BJ's, for example. Comes with some standard lens (they didn't have the specs posted) for $549. Then I would add a 'Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC HSM Zoom Lens for Canon' for my fish tank photography for $599. Does this sound like a good choice?? Way too much alphabet soup for me to decipher, after 30 years out of 'serious' photography.

 

Is an XS an XS? Does it also have options? i.e. - is there an 'inexpensive, lesser functionality' version? Or is anything that says 'Canon EOS Rebel XS' equal?

 

Thanks,

bob

 

For the price, I quite like the XS - a friend just bought it as a step up from his P&S and really seems to enjoy it. The standard lens would be the 18-55 kit lens. Decent lens for what you'd essentially be paying for it. In camera terms, options are only available by the model. So an XS is an XS, no "extras" to be added. The only other options are black/silver and which (if any) lens(es) come with it. In the $550 price range, it's a great choice.

 

That Sigma lens is supposed to be a spectacular lens as well, for a great price considering the build quality.

 

 

Is this the 50mm lens you are referring to?

 

 

Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D $129.99 Shipped

 

 

thats the one. what a price jump...a few months back those were under a hundred.

 

 

 

 

 

When shooting for the tank, best to take it off autopilot. The camera tends to compensate by slowing shutter speed too much, causing lots of camera shake issues (especially without VR). If you switch over to manual, go with ISO 800 (back down to 400 if the shots are coming out especially noisy). Set the shutter speed to 1/x, where x is the focal length you're shooting at (for example, I often shoot at 18mm and 55mm, so my slowest shutter speeds would be 1/20 and 1/60 which are as close to those focal lengths as the camera can shoot). Then, set your aperture to whatever will make for a well exposed image. I usually shoot for the exposure marker to be somewhere between -1 and 0, and correct whatever I need to in Lightroom later (huge advantage here if you keep shooting RAW). Remember to keep the lens as parallel to the glass as possible, although you'll continue to have issues from the glass distortion. If you use the tripod, switch the camera over to a 2 second delay, to minimize vibrations from pressing the button. For the fish, you'll have to find some way to increase the shutter speed to 1/100 with tangs and the like that aren't slowing down to give you an opportunity.

 

There's a very nice primer on aquarium photography on nano-reef, in the photography section. While I wouldn't recommend NR as a source of good info in most cases, this happens to be one article they did a decent job on.

[El Camaron]

dpreview helped me with camera reviews and comparisons when i bought my XTI, ueah there were a few better but none for the prize i paid for it.

[ctenophore]

Is this the 50mm lens you are referring to?

 

 

Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D $129.99 Shipped

 

I love this lens. Great for both kid & fish pics, my two primary subjects. The cheapest lens I've seen and takes tack sharp pics.

[dschflier]

I have to disagree with dschflier's assessment of Nikon being a "better made camera". Nikon does some things better, Canon does others. The end result, though, is that both systems are top of the line. If his statement were true, you wouldn't see all those white lenses at the sporting events of the Canon users.

 

I wanted to clarify that this was not my assesment.

 

In response to dshnarw it appears clear he has a good knowledge of the various cameras and some useful information. I have limited experience from my own personal use. One of my neighbors who is now retired, was the National Geogrphics chief editor for about 15 years. I was over his place looking at various photos and artifacts at his place and after asking about cameras, he was the person who strongly recomended Nikon. He had more to say then that, but I clearly remember that. I have two other friends who are photogrphers who have had similar feelings about Nikon. Quality was one of the reasons he had mentioned.

[amay121]

We're just amateurs. I think that you could choose either the Nikon or Canon and would notice a difference between them, but you would notice a difference between dSLR picture quality from P&S cameras.

 

I have a XTi and I love it. My wife loves it also (when I'm taking pictures since she hasn't take the time to learn how). Honestly though, if I was going to do this for a living, I'd be a little bit more picky with what I'd like. I just wanted a good entry level camera and a decent lens or two to help out.

 

So, to Boret. Go to the store, heft both cameras. Feel each one that you find affordable, and make notes of the contours, features, weight, and overall feel of the camera. Then after you've done that, go and buy the camera that feels "best" in your hands. Keep it affordable because all these SLR folks can attest. Your biggest purchases won't be for the camera itself. You're likely to spend a LOT more money for the lenses than you will for the camera.

 

So enjoy. After all, it's just another hobby, unless you get down and dirty like Chris (gadgets), then you can nit pick all you want about every single feature and which manufacturer is better than the other one.

Edited August 17, 2009 by amay121

[Boret]

Thanks guys!!

I did just that and try each camera.

The Nikon D40 that I have at home right now is a great camera, but for a few more dollars I can get a couple of features that I like and miss in the D40.

I have to say I really like the Canon T1i. It has a couple of things that are very nice for me. One is the possibility to change the focus on the view finder so I can use it without glasses. It has a small wheel next to the view finder that allows you to modify the focus. The other one is Live View which I think will make the transition from P&S very smooth, plus it will help to get my wife to also use the camera. It has a large LCD and HD video. Another plus on the wife front

I wonder if Canon has an equivalent to Nikon 50mm lens (I am sure they do) for around $100, I have to research that.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Boret

[amay121]

They do, but it's made out of plastic. It's called the nifty fifty. I'll come by tomorrow to borrow the fish feeders and I can loan you my 50mm 1.8 lens if you want.

[Boret]

That would be cool. Maybe you can even give me some pointers on how to use a DSLR!

Send me a cell message when you are heading this way.

[dshnarw]

I have to disagree with dschflier's assessment of Nikon being a "better made camera". Nikon does some things better, Canon does others. The end result, though, is that both systems are top of the line. If his statement were true, you wouldn't see all those white lenses at the sporting events of the Canon users.

 

I wanted to clarify that this was not my assesment.

 

In response to dshnarw it appears clear he has a good knowledge of the various cameras and some useful information. I have limited experience from my own personal use. One of my neighbors who is now retired, was the National Geogrphics chief editor for about 15 years. I was over his place looking at various photos and artifacts at his place and after asking about cameras, he was the person who strongly recomended Nikon. He had more to say then that, but I clearly remember that. I have two other friends who are photogrphers who have had similar feelings about Nikon. Quality was one of the reasons he had mentioned.

 

Ah, sorry I misinterpreted. You can tell I've been on the photography forums too long when I start reading everyone statements as "this brand is awesome" with an implied "those other brands suck" behind it. Same kinda thing with cars and my parents' generation. You were a Ford guy or a Chevy guy. Don't try to talk about the other brand, cause they'll just complain about how it's horrible. Camera guys tend to get that way after a while.

 

Anyway...Boret - one nice thing about the Nikon/Canon rivalry is that any lens one company has, the other has some equivalent. The quality is nearly identical and, until recently?, the price was as well. I was just searching out some prices, it looks like Nikon is significantly higher than Canon for equivalent lenses now? Maybe one of the Nikon users can confirm that - I just looked at the Canon 100mm macro vs. Nikon 105mm macro, and it's about $200 difference? The pro-series 17-55 for each is $350 difference?

 

Well, if that really is the case, don't write off Nikon - I would assume prices will come back in line at some point, and you can always get 3rd party lenses of good quality for a cheaper price. Sigma and Tamron each have some very nice lenses, as long as you take the time to read the reviews and avoid their junk lenses.

[Boret]

I buddy of mine brought over his Sony Alpha350 DSLR camera. So right now I have two DSLRs at home, that one and the Nikon D40. The Nikon D40 comes with a 18-55mm lens (no VR) and the Sony has 2 lenses a 18-70mm and a 55-200mm. I was able to get "better" pictures out of the Nikon than the Sony, but I cannot get the level of detail that I see in other pictures. I have not used a Canon so I don't know how it will fare against these two, but so far I am very disappointed at how bad I AM at taking pictures. It is very frustrating when I have 2 decent cameras that get good reviews online and I can't get a single tank picture that I like. It seems another lens is a must (as many of you already mentioned) in order to get the pictures of the corals.

I was really considering the Canon T1i at $800 because I considered a good camera with a couple of nice features that will make it wife friendly (Live View and HD Video), but now I know (I think I do) that I will also need to spend $300 to $600 in lenses, and still I am not sure I will get a decent picture.

 

Anyone interested in showing me wrong for a drink or even a frag?

 

BTW, thanks Amay121 for the input today. I tried some of it but couldn't get the level of detail that I expected.