Yes, another dSLR thread. The "mccabe" thread got me thinking about dSLRs again. And it's from me, so of course it's (too) long - good luck getting all the way through it! For a change from these threads, I'm not terribly interested in concert photography. With my old N80 + Tokina 24-200 f/3.5 - 5.6, I generally shot city / landscapes / scenery, and some people & pets. I used the Tokina at its shorter end (24-100) a LOT, quite a bit from 100-150, and only occasionally > 150 (in large part due to the f/5.6 resulting in too-slow shutter speeds). I shoot strictly handheld, and don't plan on moving to a tripod, though I may eventually opt for a monopod. FWIW, I don't expect my usage to change dramatically, though I may end up doing significantly more family-oriented pics of nieces, pets, grandparents, and such, but...who knows? Most images will display on a computer monitor, but I do intend to print some at 5x7 / 6x9 / 8x10.
Before I go further, I do have one specific question I don't want to get lost in the details below:- With my N80 + 24-200 f/3.5 - 5.6, I never played around much with more sensitive film (>= 400 ISO) or pushing ISO. For moderate low light (definitely not concert low light...think sunset / dusk), will the ability to easily adjust sensitivity to higher ISOs + image stabilization of some kind produce fast enough shutter speeds for hand-held shots when using the full range of a (say, a 16-85 (35mm eq = 24-128)) f/3.5 - 5.6 lens? I simply don't have the experience to know the answer to this question, so I must ask. If lenses with a long end down to f/5.6 would work for the kind of shooting I describe above, my lens options open up in a HUGE way.
And I'm curious about general thoughts on the following:
- sealed body v. not sealed - though a sealed body only really provides value when used with a sealed lens (on which I likely won't spend money), it suggests to me a high overall build quality
- dust reduction v. none - not sure how much of an issue dust might prove; I had dust challenges on my old N80, but have seen conflicting reports as to whether in-body dust reduction works; also found a bit of info about how to clean dust oneself, though not sure I'd be brave enough to do it
- in-body shake reduction v. none - seems like a winner, as the reviews / tests I've read indicate it delivers a solid +2 stops
- in-body shake reduction v. in-lens shake reduction - in-lens appears to be the winner, more likely providing +2-3 stops, v. just +2 for in-body; but it costs more, and one pays for it with every lens; not sure that extra 1 stop is worth it to me
- MP requirements for 8x10 prints - some people say 6 MP is fine, others 8 MP, 10 MP will obviously suffice, as well as deliver theoretically better resolution when cropping (which I'll likely do a lot of until I better develop my framing skills)
- Photog forums and new / used markets - so far found good forums and associated used markets (dpreview, fredmiranda, dgrin, photo.net, photozone) and the usual new markets (adoroma, b&h, keh)
Moving on...
BudgetTotal budget: $1,200
firm.
I've done a bit of homework here and on the various forums/sites listed above. The array of available gear is, well...overwhelming. But I'm slowly sorting through it. I'm definitely open to used gear, but don't care to wait around more than a week or two for minor (10-20%) savings, and definitely don't have the patience to wait around weeks/months for that "killer" deal. It's quite likely I'll buy body + 1 lens new, then take my time finding a 2nd lens used.
General ConsiderationsBodiesI generally appreciate robust build quality. I'm figuring 6-10 MP will be fine for my purposes, though I find myself leaning towards the 10MP bodies not so much for the MP, but for the (perceived) higher build quality and in some cases broader feature set.
CanonI've toyed around very briefly with a Canon XT and found it almost toy-like, though that in itself is not a deal breaker. The challenge with all the Canon bodies in my price range is the 1.6 FOV crop factor - makes it even more difficult to get to my lens target short end of 24mm (35mm equivalent). I've also not found any IS lenses in my budget that fit my target lens range of ~24 - ~150 (35mm equivalent, either a single lens, or more likely two lenses spanning that range).
NikonMy old Nikon N80's the only SLR I've ever owned. I liked it a lot, but I'm definitely not a diehard Nikoner (or whatever Nikon diehard fans are called). Seems Nikon's lens ranges suit my desires fairly well. More on specific lenses below.
PentaxI'm intrigued by Pentax, even though they're not one of the big 2. Seems they've packed a lot of value (build quality, hard buttons, sealed, dust reduction, shake reduction) into the K10D, and to a lesser degree the K100D. I hadn't originally considered Pentax, but my interest is piqued.
LensesI don't intend to shoot much, if at all, in very low light (like concerts), but will definitely shoot a fair amount in moderate low light. For indoor moderate low light, subjects are mainly people, and I'll just pick up an inexpensive, fast prime at some point (likely 50mm). For outdoor moderate low light, think sunset/dusk & sunrise (hah! not bloody likely). But much/most of my shooting will be regular daytime hours outside.
Based on challenges I had with the Tokina 24-200 f/3.5-5.6 in lowish light, I'm inclined to go for moderate speed glass (in the f/2.8-4.5 range). Though two big advantages of digital that may offset my lowish light challenges towards the f/5.6: ability to easily <a> offset the slightly slower lens to some degree by increasing ISO, and <b> push 1-2 f-stops in RAW post-processing.
Ideal target lens range: 35mm equivalent of ~24mm - ~150mmConsidering how much I used my old lens on the short end, I'm pretty firm on 24mm, but remain open to suggestions as to whether I'd miss the 3mm if moving to ~27mm. Stepping up to 27mm on the short end would <a> bring the Canon option into contention, and <b> open up a handful of additional shorter-end lenses in the Nikon option. However, spending $250-400 on the shorter end (~24-105, in which I don't foresee as strong a need for VR) makes it very difficult from a budget perspective to to achieve my longer end goal of >= ~150mm (where VR becomes far more important). I've not found any Canon lenses with IS that match goals anywhere near my budget. I'm not even sure if the used market will provide IS lenses within my budget (though to be fair I haven't searched long or hard).
All that said, I don't foresee myself becoming a gear junky for photography, and ultimately will probably end up with 1-2 lenses to cover the range above + a fast prime like a 50mm. So massive lens selection isn't a huge deal for me, though...never know, I'm a pretty thorough junky with recording gear...maybe it'll rub off...
Bodies & LensesSo far, my considerations:
Nikon$650 | Nikon D80 RefurbNikon has a great reputation, obviously. More than enough pixels (10MP), and the 1.5 FOV crop factor is workable. I find the D80 appealing because I'm moderately familiar with Nikon (used my N80 a fair amount, though don't know how much of the fit, finish, ergos, etc. translate into the digital realm). Seems there are lots of lenses from which to choose, and a there's a good used lens market. If the build quality is anything like the N80, I'll be quite happy. I'm mildly concerned about the lack of sealing and dust reduction features - dust became an issue on my N80 - but I'm probably being a bit paranoid.
$620 | Nikon 2178G | 16-85 (35mm eq = 24-128) | f/3.5 - 5.6 | AF-S DX ED (VR) Vibration Reduction Wide Angle Autofocus ZoomI think I could probably get by with this single lens for starters - gets the wide angle I want, plus decent zoom capabilities. I don't mind foregoing the longer reach for now. VR is a big plus, obviously. Though I'm a bit concerned about the f/3.5-5.6 based on my experiences with my N80 / Tokina 24-200 f/3.5 - 5.6. As noted before, though, perhaps that's not an issue in digital due to more flexibility in changing ISO on the fly and opportunity to push 1-2 f-stops in post-processing.
Considered and DroppedNikon D40 / D40X.
Final CommentIf I decide to go body + 1 "catch-all" lens, I'm leaning this way. Tied for 1st choice with the Pentax option below.
Pentax$650 | Pentax K10DI find the K10D really intriguing. More than enough pixels (10MP), and the 1.5 FOV crop factor is workable. Build quality is supposed to be -very- good. I find the weather sealing, dust reduction, and in-body shake reduction features pretty appealing. I also like some of the usability features: hard button to toggle between RAW and JPG or RAW and RAW + JPG; hyper-program which allows easy switching between fully automatic, aperture priority, and shutter priority via a quick turn of the front or rear dials (no need to adjust the mode dial, though the option exists there, too); user-definable auto-ISO; digital preview (which I imagine I'll use a lot at first, but then less and less over time), combined aperture and shutter priority mode (though not sure how much I'd use this...might just go straight to full manual mode). I've found the IS on my Canon SD850IS point & shoot quite useful, and expect the same on the K10D. I know it's not a panacea by any means, but still a useful feature, I think. And while apparently slightly less effective (most testing I've seen indicates 2 f-stop improvement for in-body, 3 f-stop improvement for in-lens, it's certainly substantially cheaper than getting IS in every lens.
$440 | Pentax K100DAnother $$$ saver, even new, to the tune of $200+. Six MP is probably sufficient for my needs. Lack of dust reduction feature a minus (as previously noted may not matter), but in-body shake reduction a plus. FOV crop factor 1.5 okay. Build quality not as good / robust as the K10D. AA / CR-V3 batteries not as good as rechargeable lithium (IMO). No control panel light. ISO 1/2 step only. ±2 exposure compensation v. ±5 for the other bodies. So...quite a few compromises along the way to saving a couple hundred bucks - which won't break me anyway, and may not go all that far towards better lenses.
$330 | Pentax 21507G | 16-45 (35mm eq = 24-68) | f/4.0 | ED-AL Autofocus ZoomIdeally, I'd like a lens with the same wide angle -and- longer reach, like the Nikon 2178. Haven't found one yet. But...the price is right, and it performs a bit better on the short end than a lens including a longer reach.
$360 | Sigma 549109 | 17-70 (35mm eq = 26-105) | f/2.8 - 4.5 | DC Macro AutoFocus Wide Angle ZoomAlternative to the 16-45 above. Sacrifices a couple mm on the short end, but provides better reach for walkaround shooting.
$210 | Pentax 27997 | 28-105 (35mm eq = 42-158) | f/3.2 - 4.5 | SMCP-FA AL Standard Auto Focus ZoomEwwwww...silver shell. Not available in black. I've read almost exclusively rave reviews on this inexpensive lens. Out of production, so if I get one new, I'll need to do so swiftly.
Final CommentTied for 1st choice with the Nikon option above. Two lens Pentax option will require more frequent lens changes than the single lens Nikon option for general walking around (which represents the bulk of my shooting). Though adding lenses should prove less expensive since I don't have to pay for VR with every lens, as with the Nikon. Looks like Pentax plans on a 17-70 (35mm eq = 26-105) f/4 lens for release this summer, which would make for a better walkaround than the 16-45 above. Finally, while it seems the Pentax lens offering lacks in long reach telephoto and telephoto zoom, I don't foresee plans to need the long reach, so I don't currently consider it a significant deciding factor. Though preferences change, so...who knows?
Canon$650 | Canon 30D RefurbLike Nikon, Canon has a great reputation. I find the 30D appealing because I'm certain I'll appreciate the robust metal frame, seems there are lots of lenses from which to choose, and a there's a good used lens market. With a metal frame, I assume the overall build quality will be very good. But (again) I'm concerned about the lack of sealing and dust reduction features - but (again) perhaps I'm overly paranoid. Eight MP should be plenty, but the 1.6 FOV crop factor makes it a bit more difficult to go as wide as I'd like. Seems like CF is a dying media format for dSLR, but not a big deal to me at this point (unless high-ish capacity / fast CF are hugely more expensive than SD, which I doubt).
$470 | Canon 400D (Digital Rebel XTi)Could be a contender. Plenty of MP. Same lens options as the 30D, unfortunately including challenges in getting to 24mm on the short end due to the 1.6 FOV crop factor. Includes a dust reduction feature, which seems like a good idea. New saves me ~$120-150, used even more, both of which provide extra cash towards better lens(es), though I'm not sure $150 will have a huge impact on my lens availability within my budget.
$420 | Tamron AF016C700 | 17-50 (35mm eq 27-80) | f/2.8 | XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF) Standard ZoomSmaller zoom range than the Sigma below, but fixed f/2.8 throughout the range.
$360 | Sigma 669101 | 17-70 (35mm eq = 27-112) | f/2.8 - 4.5 | DC Macro AutoFocus Super Wide Angle ZoomPretty good speed, probably a better walking around lens than the Tamron above.
$230 | Canon 6469A005 | 28-105 (35mm eq = 45-168) | f/3.5 - 4.5 | EF II USM AutoFocus Wide Angle Telephoto ZoomSeems like a winner for walking around when not planning to shoot wide angle.
Considered and DroppedCanon 300D / 350D
Final CommentProbably my last option at this point, as the 1.6 FOV crop factor presents challenges, and IS lens pricing for my desired range seems out of reach (at least new, perhaps not used).
FinallyPhew! You made it (or perhaps just wisely skipped to the bottom).
Am I waaaaay overthinking this? Critiques? Recommendations?
FWIW, the above reflects the best options I've identified to date. Other lenses / bodies I've considered (again, only new at this point, will continue to start seeking out new gear, though likely not in earnest til I decide which option to pursue):