Topic: in the market for a SLR...

[nickgregory]

so I am in the market for a SLR, primarily for pictures of my daughter (have to save some money from going to the photographer every month  )

So I was looking at this unit:

http://www.ubid.com/Canon_Rebel_XTi_10MP_Camera_(black)%7e_6_Bonus_%2b_4GB%2b_Extra_Battery/a901742212-rsearchone.html

and I was curious if anyone had any experience with this unit or other units...appreciate any input!

Nick

[Shawn]

I just got a rebel XT (the model beneath this) for my wife a few months ago. It's a very nice camera. IF you check the used section on B&H's website they seem to have a pretty steady flow of the bodies and some nice lenses that you can pick up ata reasonable price.

FWIW there are quite a few people on this forum that use either the XT or the XTi body and most everyone seems to like them.

[Rick]

I just got my first SLR this week and I went with the XTi mainly because of the self cleaning function and the extra MP.

I also decided to just get the body and get a lens separately, but all the different lens made my head spin. I've heard the kit lens isn't very good. But if your not looking to spend over $800, that kit looks good to me. But again I just got my first SLR this week

Rick

[nickgregory]

good info, thanks to both of you...I am going to run by Wolf Camera locally so that I can get a feel on prices from an outlet like that as well...my wife has heard that wolf offers training classes, I think 18 credits, that come with the purchase of the camera, specific to the camera and differnt types of photo scenarios...considering we are both new to SLRs, it could be a good deal...

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I'm not going to wade into the which is better, etc, but a lot of folks prefer the usability of the Nikons over the Canons. Ken Rockwell has written a lot about that and friends have made similar comments.

Costco has the D40 with a 2GB SD card for $580 with the 18-55 lens.. AND they have a 90 day return policy on electronics with no restocking fee BS.  That policy was huge in my decision to get a camera there vs. other vendors.  I bought a panasonic lumix the day before I went on vacation.

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11208748&search=d40&Mo=0&cm_re=1_en-_-Top_Left_Nav-_-Top_search&lang=en-US&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&Sp=S&N=0&whse=BC&Dx=mode+matchallpartial&Ntk=Text_Search&Dr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ne=4000000&D=d40&Ntt=d40&No=0&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Nty=1&topnav=&s=1
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm

[phanophish]

You can't really go wrong with Canon or Nikon.  Canon seems to have a edge with low light performance and sports focusing.  Nikon typically has better flash metering and many do prefer their ergonomics, myself included.  All that said you can get great results with either system so do your research and then get out there and shoot.

Lastly, Canon just announced a few new high end bodies and Nikon is rumored to be making an announcement by the end of the week regarding new cameras. These new announcements will likely impact pricing on the used and probably the new camera market so it might be smart to hold off for just a bit.

[Frank in JC]

I'm not going to wade into the which is better, etc, but a lot of folks prefer the usability of the Nikons over the Canons. Ken Rockwell has written a lot about that and friends have made similar comments.

Since you mention his name... Ken obviously has a lot of good information on his website, but it's worth noting that he's more than a little dogmatic.  I understand where he's coming from, but novices should be aware that his conclusions have a lot to do with HIS style of photography.  What's right for one photographer can be completely wrong for another.

I chose Nikon because (1) I've only used Nikon SLRs, (2) The Nikon Legacy, (3) Nikons are much nicer looking machines than Canons for my taste, and (4) I prefer Coke over Pepsi.  It didn't have much to do with picture quality, other than the fact that both companies' cameras take excellent photos.

[Brian]

so what's the big draw for a 20d or 30d over an XTi?

[phanophish]

The big difference with the jump from the Xt Series to the D Series (Canon just announced the 40D like yesterday) is a pretty significant step up in build quality.  The D series has an all metal chassis, compared to the XTs being plastic.  The D series also has higher frame rates, some additional manual controls and customization.  It's basically a more "pro" style body.  I'm sure there are other details I'm leaving out since I'm more familiar with the Nikon products.  I just made the jump from the D70 (XT series competitor) to the D200 (D Series Competitor) and must say I'm really liking the D200. The bottom line is they are all great cameras and you can get outstanding results with any of them.  It's just a matter of mastering your tools. Personally if you are on a limited budget save the extra $$ for good glass and upgrade the camera body later.. 

[Brian]

+thanks!

my budget is gong to be around $1500.  definitely need the glass for low light concert photography and then good one for day time outside photos. from what i've read it looks like the stock glass will be good for indoor with light stuff.  although the 50mm f/1.4 is something i'd rather get first if getting both is out of my budget.

i guess i'm trying to decide if i should just get the XTi or save a little more for the next step up which i think is the 20d

[phanophish]

+thanks!

my budget is gong to be around $1500.  definitely need the glass for low light concert photography and then good one for day time outside photos. from what i've read it looks like the stock glass will be good for indoor with light stuff.  although the 50mm f/1.4 is something i'd rather get first if getting both is out of my budget.

i guess i'm trying to decide if i should just get the XTi or save a little more for the next step up which i think is the 20d

I think the 20D is discontinued.  A quick check of B&H shows the 30D selling for basically $1000.  40Ds look like they will run right at $1300, but will probably be tough to come by for a while since they are brand new.  You may see the 30Ds drop in price though both new and used with the release of the 40D.  if you are not opposed to used check out the Buy & Sell forums over at FredMiranda.com.  It is a very active photography message board and I'm sure there will be some deals on 30Ds as people sell gear to pick up 40Ds.  If I were shopping with your budget and needed everything new, I'd probably go with the Xti, Grab the Sigma 18-50/2.8 for about $400 and maybe pick up something inexpensive with a longer focal length with plans to sell it and upgrade later.  You would probably have $$ left over for a bag and a 50/1.8 if you went that route.  I'd take a close look at the 40D if you are considering the 30D instead of the XTi.  If you look used then it's a whole new ball of wax as the price points all drop.  Cameras do have mechanical parts that wear out so used bodies may not always be the best deal, glass typically hold it's value pretty well so happy shopping.  At the very least look over FredMiranda to get a feel for used prices.

[Frank in JC]

...the 50mm f/1.4 is something i'd rather get first if getting both is out of my budget.

Keep in mind you'll pay $200 more for an additional 2/3 of a stop compared to a 50mm f/1.8.  Yes that makes a diference, but f/1.8 is nothing to sneeze at.  More importantly, when you stick a 50mm on a digital camera (excluding those with full-frame sensors) you may be disappointed.  Even with 35mm SLRs I wasn't much of a fan of the 50mm.  Taking the cropping factor into account, it "becomes" a 75mm which is not a particularly useful focal length for general photography.   It is a great lens and I've taken some excellent photos with it, but it's not the right tool for me.  The right tool is probably a 17-55 f/2.8, but I don't own one... yet 

My advice is that the two bills might be better spent elsewhere, and a 50mm f/1.8 will give you more than a taste of what a wide aperture brings to the table.  Also, you mentioned getting the 50mm first... I wouldn't do that.   If it's the only lens you have, your snazzy new camera won't be nearly as much fun!  Chances are, shooting concerts will only be a small part of your photographic endeavors.

-Frank

[Brian]

  Chances are, shooting concerts will only be a small part of your photographic endeavors.

that could be a fair assumption in the long run.  However there isn't one good concert photographer doing work with bands in my area.  i want to get into that as a side business venture.

but the main reasoning for buying the camera is two fold

1) I'll be a father by mid november and i want a great camera for all that entails

2) concert photography. 

reason one would need me to have a good all around lens for situations with good lighting both outside and inside. reason 2 would need me a good low light lens and most of what i read here( i know....a taper's forum ) has lead me to believe that a 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 lens is a good "lower budget" option.

it's looking like i'm leaning towards a new XTi as far as a body.

thanks for the responses guys.

[phanophish]

...the 50mm f/1.4 is something i'd rather get first if getting both is out of my budget.

Keep in mind you'll pay $200 more for an additional 2/3 of a stop compared to a 50mm f/1.8.  Yes that makes a diference, but f/1.8 is nothing to sneeze at.  More importantly, when you stick a 50mm on a digital camera (excluding those with full-frame sensors) you may be disappointed.  Even with 35mm SLRs I wasn't much of a fan of the 50mm.  Taking the cropping factor into account, it "becomes" a 75mm which is not a particularly useful focal length for general photography.   It is a great lens and I've taken some excellent photos with it, but it's not the right tool for me.  The right tool is probably a 17-55 f/2.8, but I don't own one... yet 

My advice is that the two bills might be better spent elsewhere, and a 50mm f/1.8 will give you more than a taste of what a wide aperture brings to the table.  Also, you mentioned getting the 50mm first... I wouldn't do that.   If it's the only lens you have, your snazzy new camera won't be nearly as much fun!  Chances are, shooting concerts will only be a small part of your photographic endeavors.

-Frank

I totally agree.  Get the 1.8 at first, the 1.4 is not that much faster and if you are on a budget the $200 will do more for you elsewhere. I typically only use the 50mm when the light is really low when even at 2.8 I'm getting motion blur or for portraits and such where I want a really shallow depth of field.  FOr concerts nailing the focus with the 1.8/1.8 can be tough since the depth of field is so shallow.  I'll give one more fluff to Sigma's 18-50/2.8(~$400).  It's probably become my favorite casual shooting lens and runs less that half of what the Nikon or Canon equivalent does.  It's fast, sharp and affordable.  Good combination for a lens.  The lens I use the most for daily shooting the 18-50/2.8, then my 70-200/2.8VR, then probably my 50/1.4 or the 10-20 for very specific purposes.  When I'm shooting 90% of the time I have 2 bodies, one with the 18-50 and one with the 70-200, and if I HAD to only carry one lens it would probably be the 18-50.

Looks like you can grab the Sigma from an Amazon affiliate for less that I thought....

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-50mm-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000JDJJ82/ref=sr_1_1/105-0350858-0346042?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1187815142&sr=8-1

[phanophish]

  Chances are, shooting concerts will only be a small part of your photographic endeavors.

that could be a fair assumption in the long run.  However there isn't one good concert photographer doing work with bands in my area.  i want to get into that as a side business venture.

but the main reasoning for buying the camera is two fold

1) I'll be a father by mid november and i want a great camera for all that entails

2) concert photography. 

reason one would need me to have a good all around lens for situations with good lighting both outside and inside. reason 2 would need me a good low light lens and most of what i read here( i know....a taper's forum ) has lead me to believe that a 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 lens is a good "lower budget" option.

it's looking like i'm leaning towards a new XTi as far as a body.

thanks for the responses guys.

I'm going crazy on this thread, but...

1...  Congrats on becoming a dad. 

2.  Concert Photography as a business....  Don't get in to it for the $$.  It's like saying I'm getting in to taping for the $$.  You might occasionally get paid, but it is rare and typically not very much.  That's probably why there are so few concert photography pros in the area.  I do it because I get to combine 2 things I love, live music and photography.

Sounds like you are very much on the right track.  happy shopping....

[Frank in JC]

...one more fluff to Sigma's 18-50/2.8

Sorry to hijack the thread, but...

Of the 3rd party manufacturers I've been most pleased with Tokina but never owned a Sigma.

$400 for the Sigma versus $1,200 for Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8.  Hmmmmm...  The obvious question is, "how does it compare optically," which I suspect is probably good, but just as important, how is the build quality and mechanical performance?  Sigma doesn't have a reputation for high quality construction, but it's not like they're pulling a fast one; they're just trying sell lenses at affordable prices.

[Nicola Fankhauser]

hi

when reading the post topic, I wondered why you'd want to discuss buying cars here... however, rest assured, once you're hooked up to the dslr-stuff, it'll burn holes into your pockets like almost nothing else.

well, taping maybe being the exception.

regards
nicola

ps: proud owner of a canon 5d, with too many glass to carry around at once...

[dgodwin]

...one more fluff to Sigma's 18-50/2.8

Sorry to hijack the thread, but...

Of the 3rd party manufacturers I've been most pleased with Tokina but never owned a Sigma.

$400 for the Sigma versus $1,200 for Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8.  Hmmmmm...  The obvious question is, "how does it compare optically," which I suspect is probably good, but just as important, how is the build quality and mechanical performance?  Sigma doesn't have a reputation for high quality construction, but it's not like they're pulling a fast one; they're just trying sell lenses at affordable prices.

I have all Sigma brand lenses.  Just buy the better quality, EX line lenses and I think you'll be happy with them. 

[phanophish]

...one more fluff to Sigma's 18-50/2.8

Sorry to hijack the thread, but...

Of the 3rd party manufacturers I've been most pleased with Tokina but never owned a Sigma.

$400 for the Sigma versus $1,200 for Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8.  Hmmmmm...  The obvious question is, "how does it compare optically," which I suspect is probably good, but just as important, how is the build quality and mechanical performance?  Sigma doesn't have a reputation for high quality construction, but it's not like they're pulling a fast one; they're just trying sell lenses at affordable prices.

I have a few Sigma Lenses and have to say optically I've been pretty happy. I owned a Sigma 70-200/2.8 before I upgraded to the Nikon and it was a nice lens, and I think build quality was quite good.  It was not quite as nice as the Nikon and of course did not have VR.  I owned a Tokina 24-70/2.8 that I sold when I upgraded to the Sigma 18-50 that I have now.As was mentioned stick with the EX series Sigmas, they are much higher build quality than the lower end lenses Sigma makes.  I really liked the Tokina, but actually think the Sigma is a slightly better lens.  It is sharper and the build quality is every bit as good.  Granted the Nikon pro lenses are tanks, but I saved nearly $800 over the Nikon by buying the Sigma.  All that said, I'll probably upgrade to the Nikon some day, but it may be a while.