Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Honestly getting a 40D with the kit lens and an external flash will probably do you pretty well when it comes to portrait shots. Does she work in studio, or hand-held?
A big advantage that the Nikon's have is the built-in wireless flash, which for studio work is a fairly significant budget-saver.
GokuSS2 wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:Honestly getting a 40D with the kit lens and an external flash will probably do you pretty well when it comes to portrait shots. Does she work in studio, or hand-held?
A big advantage that the Nikon's have is the built-in wireless flash, which for studio work is a fairly significant budget-saver.
umm. are you confusing the Canon 40D with the Nikon D40?
JustAnEngineer wrote:I am definitely not an expert. We have plenty of users here who know much more about photography than I do.
Purchasing a DSLR ends up being more about the lenses than the camera body. Whichever brand you buy into, you're going to accumulate a collection of good lenses to go with it. Five years from now, you can buy a new camera body with better specifications and continue to use your lenses, provided that you stay with the same brand.
Canon and Nikon have dominated this market for a long time. On the Nikon side, I dislike that their entry-level models do not autofocus with all of their lenses. With a D80 or better, you can use the mechanically-driven autofocus lenses, but the D40 requires manual focusing with those lenses. Canon switched to the electronic EF mount in 1987 with their EOS line. All EF lenses work with all EOS SLRs, even the cheapest EOS Rebel XS model. The EF-S lenses only work with APS-C size EOS DSLRs (EOS 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, Rebel XT, Rebel XTi, Rebel XS, Rebel XSi). Both companies make good cameras and have a very wide selection of quality lenses available.
With Sony's Alpha, you can use the Minolta Maxxum lenses and the Sony lenses, but what may let Sony challenge the Nikon/Canon duopoly is support from the third-party lens makers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc.). These companies have long experience competing with Canon and Nikon by providing lenses that are a good value. These lenses fill in the lens selection currently available for the Sony cameras.
Hance wrote:Not much in the way of glass to worry about. She has a Minolta 28-100 kit lens. Not sure of the aperture of the lens but its nothing special probably in the 3.5-5.6 range like most kit lenses are. She also has a Sony 70-300 F4.5-5.6 so its nothing special either.
Here is a Popular Photography review that compares 5 DSLR's and they didnt really care for the sony but gave the canon high marks.
JustAnEngineer wrote:6MP is good for waaaay more than 4x6 printing. If 6MP was only good for 4x6, then 15MP wouldn't even squeak out good 8x10s.I don't know where the megapixel race will stop. A 6 MP camera is plenty for printing 4x6 prints. With 12 or 15 MP, you can make much larger prints, or crop like a madman. Of course, the higher resolution may come at the expense of possible high-ISO sensitivity, and it is more likely to have enough resolution to reveal flaws in your lenses, if you crop and enlarge.
diamond2a wrote:Well, good sony glass is disproportionately expensive. That's a big reason to avoid sony right there. Good glass will do more than a new body, there's no doubt on that.I think an investment in glass would be money better spent than an investment in a body. I've been shooting with a 6mp DSLR for a year and have been held back by my lenses and my own (lack of) talent a hundred times for every one time I've been held back by pixel count. If your wife has a good reason for switching systems then go for it, but one nice lens on the 7D will do a whole lot more for her photography than a new system with a kit lens (for a lot less money). Take the time to figure out how her camera gets used and hopefully that'll make the decision easier
mattsteg wrote:The Sony α350's CCD sensor suffers from really nasty noise at high ISO. Add that drawback to the Sony kit lens' ugly chromatic aberration, and you would be much better off with the Rebel XSi in this price range.The low-end Sony bodies aren't real great. The higher-end ones are nice enough.
mattsteg wrote:That's why I believe that Sony really needs Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses much more than Canon or Nikon does.Good Sony glass is disproportionately expensive. That's a big reason to avoid Sony right there. Good glass will do more than a new body, there's no doubt on that.
danny e. wrote:I'm beginning to think that waiting for a week or two is a super good idea considering the 50D rumors flying about.
If they are somewhat accurate and the price remains around $1,300 at launch it will be a decent deal. Also, I'm guessing the Nikon D300 will drop in price to compete? maybe?
if so, then you'd have two cameras that you'd be much more happy with in the long-term than any of the entry-level models.
GokuSS2 wrote:Nikon didn't go electronic until 1996, while Canon started making EF lenses in 1987. Nikon currently offers 11 AF-S DX zoom lenses. DX lenses only work with APS-C crop bodies like the D40, D60, D80, D90 and D300 (similar to Canon's EF-S lenses). There are two macro lenses, nine telephoto lenses and seven zoom lenses in the AF-S lineup that will work with the full-frame D3 as well as with the D40. Other than the recently-introduced AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED, Nikon does not offer any non-telephoto prime lenses that will autofocus with the D40 or D60.JustAnEngineer wrote:While what JAE said is true (about Nikons Entry level Auto focus problem) Nikon is making all their lenses AF-S which will focus faster and quieter on all their cameras. So if you are just getting into Nikon you wont have any issues.On the Nikon side, I dislike that their entry-level models do not autofocus with all of their lenses. With a D80 or better, you can use the mechanically-driven autofocus lenses, but the D40 requires manual focusing with those lenses.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Don't forget third-party glass for both sides. Also, if you're going to bring up fisheyes, it'd probably be good to mention that Canon doesn't make a fisheye particularly appropriate for crop-camera use, just a 15mm full-frame one that turns into something that's not very wide with a lot of distortion (but not really giving the fisheye look). As far as wide-angle is concerned, the Nikon crop and full-frame zoom wide and ultrawide lenses (12-24, 14-24, 17-35, dx 17-55 I suppose. Third party options like sigma-s 10-20 as well) are all AF-S and excellent quality. They're not primes, but optically they're excellent. Neither company has all that many primes that are wide on crop bodies, although canon has more fast ones and isn't missing AF. Hopefully the primes get touched up soon.GokuSS2 wrote:Nikon didn't go electronic until 1996, while Canon started making EF lenses in 1987. Nikon currently offers 11 AF-S DX zoom lenses. DX lenses only work with APS-C crop bodies like the D40, D60, D80, D90 and D300 (similar to Canon's EF-S lenses). Nikon does not currently offer ANY fisheye, wide angle or standard prime lenses that will autofocus with the D40 or D60. There are two macro lenses, nine telephoto lenses and seven zoom lenses in the AF-S lineup that will work with the full-frame D3 as well as with the D40.JustAnEngineer wrote:While what JAE said is true (about Nikons Entry level Auto focus problem) Nikon is making all their lenses AF-S which will focus faster and quieter on all their cameras. So if you are just getting into Nikon you wont have any issues.On the Nikon side, I dislike that their entry-level models do not autofocus with all of their lenses. With a D80 or better, you can use the mechanically-driven autofocus lenses, but the D40 requires manual focusing with those lenses.
That's a grand total of 11 AF-S DX and 18 AF-S lenses.
Canon currently offers 7 EF-S (six zoom + one macro) lenses and 53 EF lenses, which all work in full automatic with the entry-level Canon EOS DSLR cameras. There are more discontinued EF and EF-S lenses out there that you may find available used.
Hance wrote:Rebels certainly have nowhere near the ergonomics of your old Minolta. Other small cameras aren't as bad, but I'd still lean towards more of a midrange body - the entry-level bodies make a few too many sacrifices for my taste (in handling and operation. You can't really go wrong image-quality wise).Well we still haven't decided what to get yet. I did get a chance to fondle the Canon XSI the other day at sams club. It has been ruled out by me. I dont have hands the size of a 5 year old midget.
mattsteg wrote:The numbers are not random and the groupings are industry standard. They are facts. I counted only 24mm and wider lenses in my tally, as you could see from the links that I included.I wouldn't really call 35mm wide, nor would I call 28mm wide on a crop body. It's rather silly to include them when we're not talking about full frame cameras.
Your random numbers and arbitrary groupings are rather meaningless. "Number of lenses" is kind of pointless, as is calling a 56mm 35mm equiv field of view "wide".
Hance wrote:Well we still haven't decided what to get yet. I did get a chance to fondle the Canon XSI the other day at sams club. It has been ruled out by me. I dont have hands the size of a 5 year old midget.
JustAnEngineer wrote:You might let your wife try both models to decide which feels better in her hands. The ergonomics may be more important than the technical differences between the cameras. It may be easier to change settings on the 40D because you don't have to navigate as many menus, but if she prefers the feel of the smaller camera, that could be the deciding factor.
JustAnEngineer wrote:How much would it take to break the bank?
Thing1:
$1100 Sony α700 DSLR (camera body)
$ 420 Tamron SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II wide-standard zoom lens
...
Thing2:
$700 Canon EOS Rebel XSi (camera kit)
...
Thing3:
$1140 Canon EOS 40D (camera kit)
$ 0 kit includes $410 EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM zoom lens
...
Hance wrote:The Rebel XSi is just slightly larger than the Rebel XTi. Scratch Thing2 off of the list. Ergonomics can be important!Well we still haven't decided what to get yet. I did get a chance to fondle the Canon XSI the other day at sams club. It has been ruled out by me. I dont have hands the size of a 5 year old midget.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Hance wrote:Well we still haven't decided what to get yet. I did get a chance to fondle the Canon XSI the other day at sams club. It has been ruled out by me. I dont have hands the size of a 5 year old midget.
But does your wife? (Assuming the XSi is the same size as my XTi, I don't have a problem with it. I like the fact that it's easily maneuverable and graspable with one hand. *shrug* To each his own).
Hance wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:I will use the camera once in awhile and I am not going to drop a couple of grand on something so small its not usable.Hance wrote:Well we still haven't decided what to get yet. I did get a chance to fondle the Canon XSI the other day at sams club. It has been ruled out by me. I dont have hands the size of a 5 year old midget.
But does your wife? (Assuming the XSi is the same size as my XTi, I don't have a problem with it. I like the fact that it's easily maneuverable and graspable with one hand. *shrug* To each his own).