Camera advice

Captain_Slick

Captain_Slick

Captain_Slick

Associate
Joined
30 Nov 2003
Posts
2,211
I shoot landscapes, macro, nature and lowlight mainly. Of course I dabble in other things, but those are the areas that interest me most.

I currently own a second hand Sony a100 and I've used this with a few lenses (not expensive Zeiss or anything) to learn the basics over the past few years. Now I'm looking at making an investment in a system and purchasing some serious optics (Yes, I recognise that lenses matter much more than bodies).

Now my questions are thus: is it worth investing with FF in mind?

Which system, in your opinion, offers more for a photographer with my areas? I'm not interested in speed. I'll wait for hours for the right moment.

From a quick glance, it would appear that Canon offers a wider range of good lenses for my needs... unless I'm seriously mistaken.

If that's true, what body would be suggested? I'm interesting in making HDR images every now and then too.

And if it's not true - why is Nikon better?

I know people say that the camera doesn't matter and that it's down to the photographer, but the range of lenses available DOES impact on what photographs I can take at a quality that I deem acceptable.

I'm not particularly interested in staying with Sony for this very reason - their lenses at the same prices (or dearer) are not as well built, not as good optically and there's a small number of lenses to choose from. Maybe one day, but not today.
 
As is posted in all these threads usually, you need to handle both bodies and see which you prefer really, I really can't deal with canon's control layout myself. Lens choice is much of a muchness unless you're talking highly specialized stuff, where Nikon currently shine (the 14-24 is unparalleled and the 200-400 is excellent for example - however both are serious money).

Try both and see which you prefer in terms of feel.

As for full frame, well I think it's worth the investment (particularly with Nikon) if you're going to take it really seriously but it involves a huge initial outlay to do so as the bodies are a lot more and you really need good glass which is sharp corner to corner. Even on a prosumer body like the D300s, the cheap kit 18-55 is capable of producing good, sharp landscapes.

FF isn't so forgiving and you're looking at something like the D700 + 24-70/f2.8 as an entry point (for Nikon), which is great if you've got that sort of cash sitting around but it's a lot of cash

EDIT: oh, yes, Canon have more affordable telephotos available - the 100-400 being the obvious one from a nature standpoint, Nikon's 80-400 is (in my opinion) nowhere close and due for replacement. Nikon arguably have the better telephotos (if you disregard price), particularly that 200-400 but all their big tele lenses are historically excellent.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. I'm having different thoughts now.

I've got a fair few hundred quid invested in the Sony system, and it appears that there are a number of lenses for it that would suit me down to the ground.

I like the a100. It's built like a tank, the battery lasts forever, the controls are well laid out and easy to use. It's bigger than the equivalent models from Canon and Nikon (which is what I'd be looking at getting initially) and I have big hands. The images it produces are rather nice too, and with a better piece of glass, they'll be even better.

Will moving to Canon or Nikon make better photos? I can't really say that I believe it will, not in the short term at least.

Muhr. Confused now.
 
Last edited:
Unless you are going to be buying a stupid amount like 5 or more lenses then it really doesnt matter which system you go for imo - all have enough lenses of each range to satisfy you. If low noise is an issue i heard the Nikon D700 is very good at high ISO

WHilst i own a Sony A200, i couldnt say its built like a tank and a Canon i used recently is massively better built - by my A200 serves me well. Recently went from a 18-70 & 75-300 lens combo to a 18 - 250 lSony Lens (£400) and a 24mm f2.8 prime (used). VERY pleased with the transition.
 
Truth to be told, any system is fine unless they have a specialist lens you're looking for. In my case, I'm with Olympus and the 12-60mm is an awesome walk around lens, and the E620 has build in IS in a compact but very well build body. That said, the FourThird bodies lack fast prime lenses (excluding manual focus or legacy lenses), unlike Nikon or Canon.

So since you've stated Sony's lenses are either more expensive than it is worth, have you checked out the legacy Minolta lenses? If they aren't really your cuppa tea, then like what the bigredshark said, head into a shop and handle the body.
 
So, I've decided to ditch Sony. Yes, the a100 was a very nice camera and there are some decent Sony lenses now too (although they're vastly overpriced for what they are, IMO). However, the a100 hasn't been sufficiently replaced yet (I played around with the a500 in a store today - so plasticky!) and the a700 is hard to get a hold of and there's no sign of a replacement for that on the horizon. There's also no guarantee that Sony will still be in the DSLR business in 10 years time (EVIL? 3D? That seems to be where Sony is heading).

So I've narrowed it down to four options and I'd like to hear your thoughts.

NEW:

Canon 1000D + Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS USM lens (around £900).

or

Nikon D5000 + Nikon AF-S 16-85mm VR DX lens (around the same).

That's based purely on price. The direct competitor for the D5000 would be the 450D/500D? Which would bump the price of the Canon up to over £1000.

For £740, I could get the D3000 with the Nikon lens but from the reviews I've read it isn't really worth it. I want bracketing, and a DOF preview is handy and I can see myself getting rid of it as quickly as I got it.

The other option is to buy a used body with a new lens, in which case I could get a Canon 30D with that lens for £900 or similar or a Nikon D80 with that lens for slightly less (£700-800 depending on the price of a good used D80). Heck, I could get a D200 with that lens for £900 odd.

The reason for choosing those two lenses is that they seem perfect for my use. I mainly shoot landscapes, scenery, and a bit of everything else. If I need telephoto, I can always add each respective 70-200/300 lens as and when I find myself needing it, but otherwise it's as wide as I really need (for now anyway) and as long as I'll probably need. Most places seem to rate the cheaper Nikon lens more highly than the Canon too.

I'm also interested in dabbling in HDR photography and night time/low light work and whilst those two lenses may not be quite fast enough for that I'm sure they're okay for starting with. If I find myself regularly shooting at night, I'm sure I'll make the decision to buy a nice f2.8 or better slab of glass.

Canon or Nikon? Used or new? I've always bought used up till now (even had a fairly decent 20D w/ 17-85mm two years ago that I had to sell to afford a car - how I regret that).

Thanks for any help.
 
Last edited:
Personally I wouldn't be looking at the 16-85mm, it's a good lens with reasonable optical performance but it's a rather odd one in the Nikon lineup. The 18-200 is a far greater range with similar performance for about the same money. The 18-55 VR is far cheaper and optically as good. If you want one lens the 18-200 makes more sense whereas if you're going to buy something like the 70-300 VR as a telephoto as well then the 18-55VR makes more sense.

I suspect much the same goes for the Canon version. When it comes to manufacturer I'd pick whoever's control layout you prefer if you have no other investment in one system (family with lenses you can borrow etc) as the lens choice is much of a muchness until you get to the very high end.
 
Really?

A lot of people on Nikon forums and DPreview have actually swapped from the 18-200 to the 16-85 + 70-300 because the image quality is better, there's less distortion and it's "dumbfoundingly" sharper. Yes, that's the words they're using. Plus the wider and longer reach.

Also, the extra 2 mm at WA would come in handy for me without having to purchase a wide angle lens.

I'll be popping to a place in Manchester so I'll try out the two bodies. Are the Canon 1000D/450D/500D less plasticky than the 400D? That was the overwhelming feeling I got when I borrowed a friends one.

EDIT: Third way - D5000 Twin Lens Kit - £700~ and then go from there with regards to what lenses I want/need?
 
Last edited:
If you're happy to go second hand look at a D90 or a 40D. There's a 3 month old D90 going for £495 now on TP and a decent 40D would be around £450. I'm not up on Nikon lenses but for the Canon you could get a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for £230, a great little lens although might not quite be wide enough if you're really into landscapes?
 
Well I've never owned or spent much time with the 18-200 (I don't rate it, too much distortion and too many compromises in pursuit of one lens is pointless in my view) so I couldn't say authoritatively. Certainly I'd be surprised if it was optically better than the 18-55 though as that's a remarkably good lens for the price.

I wouldn't get hung up on the extra 2mm at the wide end, it's not much and it's still not wide, if you're shooting at that end frequently you'll need a proper wide angle zoom anyway so don't let the slightly wider option sway you.

The twin lens kit does look very good value, both those lenses are pretty well regarded (I can't comment on the body, I haven't used any of the D3000/D5000 bodies first hand) though depending how it works out cost wise the 18-55 VR and 70-300 VR would be my combination I think.

Or maybe forget the telephoto until you've worked out what you need, no point getting the 55-200 or 70-300 if you actually end up needing something like the 80-400 or similar.
 
At the moment finances are restricted anyway, so I'd be waiting at least a month or so before purchasing (Need to sell what remains of my Sony stuff for example).

I think I'll just get the body with the 18-55 kit lens.

Rojin, it's tempting but as I said I've never bought new before and I'd like the strange feeling that doing so brings - as bizarre as that sounds.

I don't care about live view. I don't care about gimmicks. I shoot mainly in RAW. I'd like to try HDR photography.

1000D or D3000? ?_?

Or is the D5000 worth £200~ more?
 
Last edited:
I just picked up a D5000 with VR kit lens for £469 including cashback - I thought it was probably worth the extra over the D300 or 1000D at that price, so it's probably worth looking around.
 
Captain_Slick said:
Rojin, it's tempting but as I said I've never bought new before and I'd like the strange feeling that doing so brings - as bizarre as that sounds.
Click to expand...

Oh I fully understand, I did exactly the same when I bought the 500D! :D

At the time I looked at the D5000 and 500D, after playing with them in the shop I went for the 500D, I did also look at the D90 and was very close to buying that but I had set myself a budget (I did actually order one online but it was out of stock so I cancelled, I was that close).
 
Hmm. I emailed some camera shops asking what they'd be able to offer for my Sony gear.

£75 for the two lenses (Minolta AF 50mm f1.7 + Sony DT 18-70)
£75 for the a100.

Methinks eBay would bring better fruits.
 
Captain_Slick said:
Hmm. I emailed some camera shops asking what they'd be able to offer for my Sony gear.

£75 for the two lenses (Minolta AF 50mm f1.7 + Sony DT 18-70)
£75 for the a100.

Methinks eBay would bring better fruits.
Click to expand...

check your e mail.

sent you a mail a few mins ago.
 
Replied to the email associated with your trust account, schizo.

That's a very good idea, Mr Jones.

Is buying a second hand Nikon D40 and the kit lens (or better) a bad idea? How does the low ISO performance/general image quality compare with the D3000? I assume the D40 has bracketing too.
 
Of course the problem with most of these Nikon options is (if you want AF) they're restricted to AF-S lenses only as they have no AF motor in the body (which is increasingly looking a smart bit of differentiation by Nikon).
 
I don't think that's a major problem anymore. Only if you'd been buying Nikon for the past 50 years would it be a major deciding factor, in which case you'd probably be looking for a body higher up the foot chain.

The majority of Nikon's zoom lenses are AF-S and the primes you'd want from them are AF-S too. Sigma/Tokina/Tamron et al are all turning to in-lens focusing now too. It's faster and quieter.

Any lens that you'd want to buy from Nikon that isn't AF-S is usually one that you'd have no trouble manually focusing anyway (fisheye/wide angle/macro).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom