To all the Photographers out there....Help please

[jamie2112]

I am in the market for a good Digital camera. I own a Canon FE-170 which is nothing fancy.I hate the zoom on it as it has none. I am looking to buy something in the 600 and under catagory. I would love to have a great zoom and ability to add a zoom lens at some point. If anyone with camera knowlage could give me some idea of what would be a good starting point I would be very thankful..


Jamie

 

[jwenthold99]

Check out the canon xti... with the xsi just being released, it can be had for a very good price. You can get it with the kit lens, or go body only and get a nicer lens like this or a little nicer with image stabilization.

Just a starting point.

i am no expert, but it's always good to check out the camera shops, and try out different makes and models to see what feels comfortable.

 

[aberkowitz]

Jamie,

I got some great advice from the folks on this forum when buying a camera back in the spring. Check out this thread http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42856&highlight=camera for more details. Also, make sure you check out www.dpreview.com for reviews on EVERYTHING camera.

Adam

 

[jwenthold99]

Good thread ^. I bought the Xsi in may, and so far I love it. I am saving to get the Sigma 50mm 1.4 lens, and I have a whole wishlist of future lenses that I "need"

 

[Spkr_Bldr]

I've been a professional Motorsports and Amateur Sports photographer for years. I've had more gear than I could possibly remember, but now I shoot Nikon. But I took just as many great shots with my Canon and Fuji rigs, the only difference is how easy it was taking those shots. I've found Nikon SLR's faster and easier to operate, the controls just make more sense.

But if you're not considering a D-SLR I don't have much advice I could give, other than get whatever reviews well on dpreview.com

So, it kinda sounds like you're considering a D-SLR ... are you? If so go to your local store and fondle both Nikon and Cannon. Go through the process of taking a couple test shots, reviewing them, deleting them, and taking more. Try changing settings too. Just see which one handles best to you. It honestly doesn't matter what model number you handle, the Nikon and Canon user interfaces are pretty similar across models. I would suggest NOT getting a Nikon D40 though, having no focus motor in the body is big potential limitation. Honestly, I'd get a used D70s and you'll still have enough cash for a couple lenses.

 

[aberkowitz]

Good thread ^. I bought the Xsi in may, and so far I love it. I am saving to get the Sigma 50mm 1.4 lens, and I have a whole wishlist of future lenses that I "need"

Nice- we went with the Nikon D80, which we got an outstanding deal on at B&H Photography in NYC, and picked up a nice starter 18-135mm everyday zoom lens. For the package we bought B&H threw in two free clear lens filters and two high speed 2GB memory cards. All in all it was a great deal, and for those of you in the area who have not been to B&H you MUST visit. It's a living case study in operational management.

 

[gus6464]

Normally I would say go with either Canon or Nikon but since Sony has now introduced the A200 at an awesome price point it is very hard to overlook. The main reason this is an awesome camera is because it is almost identical to the original A100 but with some new and better features at half the price. Also the Sony's come with IS built-in to the body so you can use any lens you want.

Amazon right now has an A200 kit with the 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 lens which is decent for $499. While the lens is only OK the camera is where it's at for the price. I myself have an old XT and since I have a lot of lenses I will be with Canon forever but if I had to do it all over again and start from scratch right now I would most likely get the Sony if I had your budget.

Start out with the A200 with kit lens then get yourself a good zoom lens and prime lens for portraits. We used the Canon kit lens that came with out XT for a couple of years before we went out and got the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (insanely good zoom lens for the price), EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, and EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM. While IMO Canon makes better glass than Nikon or Sony, the latter have the better overall cameras out right now for the money.

 

[jamie2112]

Thanks Gus. I am a little leary about getting a sony camera. They are NOT known for their cameras. I really want a Canon or Nikon but I am not sure which one to get. I want to be able to zoom in to a stage from the soundboard which is anywhere from 60 ft to 150 ft away. I am sick of taking out of focus shots and my little Canon 170 has run its course...I will check into the sony though Gus....thanks

 

[gus6464]

Thanks Gus. I am a little leary about getting a sony camera. They are NOT known for their cameras. I really want a Canon or Nikon but I am not sure which one to get. I want to be able to zoom in to a stage from the soundboard which is anywhere from 60 ft to 150 ft away. I am sick of taking out of focus shots and my little Canon 170 has run its course...I will check into the sony though Gus....thanks

The Sony D-SLR's are a totally different animal compared to their point and shoots. While their point and shoots are pretty crappy compared to a comparable Canon the D-SLR's are superb for the money. Sony has spent a lot of money in R&D for their D-SLR's and their acquisition of Minolta has helped as well. Also Nikon uses Sony sensors on their D-SLR's and the Nikon D60 uses the same exact sensor as the A200. Canon is really the only company that makes their sensors in-house and can only be found on their cameras. While it's true that a few years back the Canon CMOS sensor was unbeatable the new CCD sensors nowadays match the quality of the Canon. Now more than ever it is more up to the image processor on the camera and features in order to differentiate the better cameras.

But like I have said before it is all about how the camera fits in your hand and how you like it. Once you get the Sony, Canon, and Nikon in your hand, you might hate the way the Canon feels and also the way the Nikon changes f-stop and shutter settings. Plus the lower end Canons always feel more "plasticky" than their Nikon, Pentax, and Sony counterparts so you might not like that either.

If you are going to be investing in some good lenses though and will probably move up to a bigger and better camera in the future, then IMO Canon is the way to go for their lenses alone. I made the mistake once of borrowing an L lens and have had the itch to upgrade ever since but doubt the wife will OK the purchase of a $1500 lens any time soon.

 

[Spkr_Bldr]

The A200 is a nice camera for the $$$. I've used one for a day, probably 500 shots with it. It has pretty good AF performance for a cheap camera, but only in good light ... in poor light the AF is average or below average. It takes pretty good pictures overall on Auto, good metering and exposure. JPG's are kinda washed out, but I'm sure that could be tweaked or just shoot raw. The worst thing about it I found was it just sucks in artificial light, White Balance is always way off, lots of noise, and poor AF. I'm kinda spoiled for the excellent artificial light performance of my Nikons.

I just looked on Ebay, looks like you could get a nice used D200 body for not much more than $600. That's a solid camera, built like a tank and performs well across the board. I used one for many Pro outings and have never been let down by it.

 

[Spkr_Bldr]

If you are going to be investing in some good lenses though and will probably move up to a bigger and better camera in the future, then IMO Canon is the way to go for their lenses alone. I made the mistake once of borrowing an L lens and have had the itch to upgrade ever since but doubt the wife will OK the purchase of a $1500 lens any time soon.

I'd have to disagree with that. The only area where I'd have said Canon glass was better was in the LONG fast primes, but within the last year Nikon released all new long primes that equal or beat the Canons. I'd also say Nikon has an edge in the portrait length primes, and their VR system works better than Canons. For the most part both Canon and Nikon lenses are sooo good across the range that it's not worth analyzing.

My favorite lens though is from neither Nikon or Canon, it's my Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. As a sports shooter that thing is just incredible, but you pay for it

 

[emorphien]

The Sony SLRs are actually the Minolta system reincarnated. I'm still not hugely fond of them but they're not bad.

I'd say stick with Canon and Nikon for broad modern compatibility. The Canon XSi and Nikon D60 scrape the top of your budget and the Canon XS is less than $600 in kit form from what I remember seeing recently.

Another option is Pentax whose bodies are nicer than the comparable XSi and D60 but you have fewer gee-whiz features and a smaller lineup of modern lense (although a huge variety of historic lenses are available like Nikon which work with little trouble). The current Pentax to look at is the K200, I don't know how much it costs.

I'd have to disagree with that. The only area where I'd have said Canon glass was better was in the LONG fast primes, but within the last year Nikon released all new long primes that equal or beat the Canons. I'd also say Nikon has an edge in the portrait length primes, and their VR system works better than Canons. For the most part both Canon and Nikon lenses are sooo good across the range that it's not worth analyzing.

My favorite lens though is from neither Nikon or Canon, it's my Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. As a sports shooter that thing is just incredible, but you pay for it

Nonsense.

Both systems have very good AF and VR systems available and a lot of different lenses available. For most users there's not much difference between the two systems but some people (myself included) will find things in each system that they need or want that the other doesn't match. Similarly, Canon and Nikon generally avoid stepping on each other's toes in the body area as well. They don't compete with each other at the mid to higher end, instead offering slightly different feature sets and types of cameras.

 

[Spkr_Bldr]

Nonsense.

Both systems have very good AF and VR systems available and a lot of different lenses available. For most users there's not much difference between the two systems but some people (myself included) will find things in each system that they need or want that the other doesn't match. Similarly, Canon and Nikon generally avoid stepping on each other's toes in the body area as well. They don't compete with each other at the mid to higher end, instead offering slightly different feature sets and types of cameras.

What is nonsense that I said? The Nikon VR II does get an extra stop or maybe two of exposure over normal VR lenses, or Canon IS lenses. I owned at the same time a Canon system and 80-200 IS, and Nikon system with 70-200 VR II. But as a sports shooter image stabilization is of little help to me, I usually shoot with VR/IS turned off.

 

[emorphien]

What is nonsense that I said? The Nikon VR II does get an extra stop or maybe two of exposure over normal VR lenses, or Canon IS lenses. I owned at the same time a Canon system and 80-200 IS, and Nikon system with 70-200 VR II. But as a sports shooter image stabilization is of little help to me, I usually shoot with VR/IS turned off.

Canon and Nikon both have various lenses with a range of supposed stop-advantages in their stabilization systems. On the whole it's a wash but you have to look at each lens as a case by case bases. Also, marketing is one thing but real world testing often yields a different result for each lens. Even in-body stabilization can be very effective in some cases (generally shorter focal lengths).

Both Canon and Nikon offer "4 stop" IS or VR on newer lenses (going back 2 or 3 years) and as older lenses are updated they will continue to benefit from the newer IS or VR versions.

 

[Spkr_Bldr]

Canon and Nikon both have various lenses with a range of supposed stop-advantages in their stabilization systems. On the whole it's a wash but you have to look at each lens as a case by case bases. Also, marketing is one thing but real world testing often yields a different result for each lens. Even in-body stabilization can be very effective in some cases (generally shorter focal lengths).

Both Canon and Nikon offer "4 stop" IS or VR on newer lenses (going back 2 or 3 years) and as older lenses are updated they will continue to benefit from the newer IS or VR versions.

Still awfully hasty to start off your post with "Nonsense".

Pro shooters couldn't care less about fanboy'ing for one system or another, we just use whatever gets the job done. I never much cared about IS or VR, or VR II ... it was just experience I was sharing. I also had both Nikon and Canon 80-400 stabilized lenses, and they were even as far as stops gained, but it was a VR, not VR II lens. If you want to use my shared experience as a point of contention, that's when I drop out of the conversation.

 

[emorphien]

I don't think it's hasty at all. You made a very broad generalization that is not accurate.

I have used various IS and VR lenses myself and only own one now. 99% of my time I'm on a tripod or prefer a faster optic than what is offered on IS lenses (f/1.4 for instance).

 

[loserwife]

Where's Sheep's post???

 

[Spkr_Bldr]

I don't think it's hasty at all. You made a very broad generalization that is not accurate.

Says you ... it IS accurate from my own experience. You can disagree without being disrespectful.

 

[emorphien]

Says many independent tests of various lenses as well. I do not consider what I said disrespectful, but I apologize if it may have upset you. I have seen many ridiculous fallacious complains making grand generalizations about how one manufacturer is superior to another and quite frankly I tire of it because it does not provide additional useful information to someone who doesn't know anything about the topic.

 

[jamie2112]

Where's Sheep's post???

I am sure he will chime in when he gets home.....