Help needed, not sure on Camera

mast3r

mast3r

mast3r

Soldato
Joined
28 Jan 2007
Posts
2,558
Location
Wilmslow, Cheshire
Hi all,

I do like to take photos, i like good quailty photos and i am a lover of long range shots, at present i have an Olympus SP-570UZ and i love it, BUT, i dont like waiting for the shots and focus delays.

I attend a lot of motorsport events and could do with the speeds between shots etc.

oultonpark2010109.jpg


I managed this with my current cam, to me... i did well.

OK, so do i fork out for a DSLR? IF so which one? I would like this to be from the argos range as i have £410 in Argos Points i would like to use.
 
A DSLR would probably allow you to capture motion better that what you currently can, not too familiar with your camera though...

Depending on how much you want to spend, from Argos I'd probably say the Nikon D3000 or Canon 1000D would both be good places to start, both around the £350 mark so you could easly afford them with your points and some left over.

I personally use Nikon but to be honest just go with whatever takes your fancy the most, keep in mind though, whoever you go with you'll probably end up sticking with, and if you start to get into it be prepared to start spending a lot more money as the addiction grows! :p
 
what about the Cannon 450D?

One thing that confuses me most, what would the difference be when you compare the likes of a 100d with a 450d and then a MK1?
 
Buy a Canikon. Either brand make super cameras and super lenses. For now, buy one of the cheaper cameras (probably with a kit lens for your general use) and spend as much as you can on a telephoto lens for the motorsport.

I'd probably opt (whichever feels best for you really) for the 1000D with kit lens and buy a 50mm f/1.8 II (great fun). That takes you to about £450 so you've used your vouchers up (I added the 50mm becuase it's fun, good in low light and uses the rest of the vouchers up).

Then your main focus should be on a lens for motorsport- a telephoto. Bear in mind you'll lose very little buying and selling good quality lenses, even the old lenses from 10 years ago still fetch good money.



So the main lenses for consideration for motorsport are probably...
Canon 70-300mm IS, good lens, good value, good focus speed or...

....my recommendation would be the...
Canon 70-200mm f/4, popular lens, part of canon 'L' series range (has a red ring on the end, usually mean execptional image quality and build, this particular lens is painted white like some other 'L' series lenses). Exceptional image quality and focus speed. Incredible value. (Look for this lens secondhand- lot's of them as people upgrade to the even more expensive versions!!!)


You may/may not be suprised when you see the cost of the lens, but the best piece of advice is to always spend money on the lenses, untill you find the body you own is missing a feature you really want.

mast3r said:
what about the Cannon 450D?

One thing that confuses me most, what would the difference be when you compare the likes of a 100d with a 450d and then a MK1?
Click to expand...

MK1? You mean like a 5D or 1D MKI?

Anyway, 1000D vs 450D, generally increased performance.



Handy tool for you - not 100% sure if this breaks the rules (I don't think it does because none of them are really competitors), if so then feel free to remove it.

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/
 
Last edited:
p0ss3s3d said:
Buy a Canikon. Either brand make super cameras and super lenses. For now, buy one of the cheaper cameras (probably with a kit lens for your general use) and spend as much as you can on a telephoto lens for the motorsport.
Click to expand...

I constantly recommend that anybody thinking about it visits a camera shop and handles both brands for 10 minutes. I think (and it is personal) that the Nikon handles better and the control layout is more intuitive. Others may like Canon but I think that's an important thing to try out (the Canon is also smaller, those with big hands may dislike it, my mum has a 500D and it feels tiny and almost toy like compared to my Nikon bodies and I have pretty small hands).

That said, and I say this as a (pained) Nikon user, there is good reason to prefer Canon for your uses as Nikon basically don't make any good mid range zooms at the moment.

The cheap Nikon 55-200 VR is excellent for what it is, for such a cheap (£150) lens it's fabulous. Likewise the pro grade 70-200 f2.8 is lovely (at £1200+ you'd hope so), but there is no obvious alternative to the canon 70-200 f4 which is a great lens at a good price (£500).

Likewise, there's a lack of any real competitor at all to the Canon 100-400 (sure there's the 80-400 but it's rubbish).

On the other hand Canon's wide zooms can't touch Nikon's for image quality...

Swings and roundabouts but for your uses, Canon do look to have a better lens choice at the moment...
 
bigredshark said:
I constantly recommend that anybody thinking about it visits a camera shop and handles both brands for 10 minutes. I think (and it is personal) that the Nikon handles better and the control layout is more intuitive. Others may like Canon but I think that's an important thing to try out (the Canon is also smaller, those with big hands may dislike it, my mum has a 500D and it feels tiny and almost toy like compared to my Nikon bodies and I have pretty small hands).

That said, and I say this as a (pained) Nikon user, there is good reason to prefer Canon for your uses as Nikon basically don't make any good mid range zooms at the moment.

The cheap Nikon 55-200 VR is excellent for what it is, for such a cheap (£150) lens it's fabulous. Likewise the pro grade 70-200 f2.8 is lovely (at £1200+ you'd hope so), but there is no obvious alternative to the canon 70-200 f4 which is a great lens at a good price (£500).

Likewise, there's a lack of any real competitor at all to the Canon 100-400 (sure there's the 80-400 but it's rubbish).

On the other hand Canon's wide zooms can't touch Nikon's for image quality...

Swings and roundabouts but for your uses, Canon do look to have a better lens choice at the moment...
Click to expand...

I agree. Canon have a great selection of teles but have nothing on Nikons wide-angles especially that 14-24mm. Although nikon do have the tasty 200-400mm. Very cool lens.

If it was me I'd be leaning towards Canon for motorsport, because of the lens choices, but as mentioned, always try to handle them in a shop to see what feels best.
 
p0ss3s3d said:
I agree. Canon have a great selection of teles but have nothing on Nikons wide-angles especially that 14-24mm. Although nikon do have the tasty 200-400mm. Very cool lens.

If it was me I'd be leaning towards Canon for motorsport, because of the lens choices, but as mentioned, always try to handle them in a shop to see what feels best.
Click to expand...

What it seems to come down to is that Nikon do very expensive lenses very well but haven't cracked the mid range (even the wide angle, it's taken them how long to produce the 16-35 f4?? And it's still more expensive by a margin than the 17-40 L).

I love my Nikon lenses and bodies because they're really good kit but Canon have pricing in their favour for the mid range segment.
 
Many thanks guys, i will be calling into a local shop today and have a play with the stock cams.

If i said, i would like to take the Cam abroad with me twice a year, for Scenic shots, Sunsets, Sunrises and mainly off a boat to shore shots, Would the comments change?
 
bigredshark said:
The cheap Nikon 55-200 VR is excellent for what it is, for such a cheap (£150) lens it's fabulous. Likewise the pro grade 70-200 f2.8 is lovely (at £1200+ you'd hope so), but there is no obvious alternative to the canon 70-200 f4 which is a great lens at a good price (£500).

Likewise, there's a lack of any real competitor at all to the Canon 100-400 (sure there's the 80-400 but it's rubbish).

.
Click to expand...


The Nikon 70-300 VR in the 70-200 range is just as good as th Canon 70-200 f/4, but slightly lower aperture. Nikon also offers an 80-200 2.8 AF-<D in that kind of price range. So this isn't really a big deal.

The 80-400 is fairly poor but optically pretty similar to the Canon 100-400. The Nikon 80-400 has long been over due an upgrade, for years now there has been strong rumours - this year there is more than ever (especially of a 100-500 type lens).

But yeah, there are some Canon lenses missing on the Nikon side. Just the 2 you mention aren't the problem. Where is Nikon's 17-55 VR with the same performance and price as the Canon version?
Where is the 300 f/4 AF-S VR (strong rumours for a replacement to the non-VR this year). Updated 35 1.4 for FX, updated 85 1.4 (should come this year).
 
bigredshark said:
What it seems to come down to is that Nikon do very expensive lenses very well but haven't cracked the mid range (even the wide angle, it's taken them how long to produce the 16-35 f4?? And it's still more expensive by a margin than the 17-40 L).

I love my Nikon lenses and bodies because they're really good kit but Canon have pricing in their favour for the mid range segment.
Click to expand...

Nikon does always seem more expensive than Canon. However, often times there is a reason. The 16-35 f/4 is optically much better than any Canon wide angle zoom (16-35 2.8 or 17-40). The 50mm 1.4/1.8 primes are mroe expensive, but sharper and better built than Canons, etc.

But then there are lenses like the 17-55 2.8 DX which have less features, (no IS/VR) lower optical performance and a much higher price. The exotic telephotos are also more expensive but probably the same optically.


Nikon mid-range stuff is more limited but I don't see it as a big problem. Often times the cheaper Nikon stuff is as good as the Pro gear fr4om either camp. A Nikon 16-85 and 70-300 will be just as good under expected working conditions as the 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. You loose mainly in the lack of 2.8 glass than anything else. And then there are often older lens like the 80-200 2.8 as a cheaper option where you mainly loose features rather than optical quality. Throw in all the 3rd party lenses (Tamron 17-50 2.8, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS). And there there are 2nd hand prices, I picked up a 70-200 2.8 VR for less than a brand new Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. I know what lens I prefer! (yes, of course canon 2nd hand is even cheaper, thats not my point, my point is that 2nd hand prices gives lots of mid-range options).


Up to date cheap wide and normal primes is lacking on Nikon, but this is slowly changing as Nikon update their line (new 50 1.4, 24 1.4, the 35 1.8 DX, expected 85 1.4 and 35 1.5 in the next 12 months.)

Nikon have less budget for developing lenses, so the slight differences between Nikon and canon will always remain I expect.
 
I'd definatley shout a canon/nikon recomendation for you.

As a canon man I'd recomend a 450D (1000D dosen't support live view :/) or a 500D like myself ... you get 3.5fps ish 15Mpix images on constant fire with the 500D which will be useful for motorsport.

Also worth considering is a generic one lens doe's all job - I've preached about this lens non stop on nearly every thread in this forum but It really is excellent.

Tamron 18-270 ... It will give you the range for nearly any photo you want + it has an excellent vibration compenstation so you get one or two stops better light at full zoom which again is useful with distant fast moving objects like motorsport or sport in general.

only downside is the lens is £450 approx on it's own
 
Canon EOS 1000D 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera with Twin Lens

# Includes eyecup, camera cover, wide strap, battery charger, power cord, LP-E5 battery pack, battery cover, video cable, interface cable, lens dust cap.

# Also includes Canon EF-S 18-55mm zoom lens and Canon EF 75-300mm

What sort of kit is the above? worth £480?

What range can i compare a 300mm lens with?
IE my SP-560 has a brill 18x zoom.
 
the tamron 18-270 is a 15x optical so 300mm would in theroy give you the same sort of range as an 18x

Important thing is firstly your SP-560 maybe 18x but what is it's starting point.

Most DSLR's have a cropped sensor, full frame 35mm sensors don't really start until you get into the 2K+ price range

most prosumer/bridge cameras will quote the focal length in 35mm equivilant. So the ultra wide panasonic that I have is quoted at 24mm (full frame equiviant)

therefore the 18mm DSLR kit lenses which have a crop factor of approx 1.5x I think off the top of my head provide comparible wide angle.

If your samsung starts at 30 or 35mm an 18x optical will provide greater zoom.
 
just checked at the conversion for canon APC sized cropped sensors in 1.6

so 300mm lens on a canon 1000, 450, 500, 550, 40, 50 & 7D's is the equivalent of 480mm

so your olympus is give or take the equivalent of an 18-300mm lens on a canon

unfortunately the only single lens I can think of that comes close is the tamron 18-270

or go with a twin lens option
 
A 300mm lens on the 1000D will have the appearance and framing of a 480mm lens. So thats essentially the same as your compact in terms of the range you would have covered. Live view deosn't really matter for sports or portraits or general shooting, so the 1000D should be fine. If you want to go for the 450D then thats fine, but I wouldn't worry about going for anything better at the moment, the 1000D and 450D are both great.


If it was me...
I'd probably get the body and it's 18-55mm kit lens. Get used to all of the functions, modes, shutter speeds and all of those technical things, just doing some general shooting

Once you've got used to it and can afford a new lens look online for a Canon 70-200mm f/4 or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. Chances are you've seen people with a Canon 70-200mm f/4 at the circuit before. Just google it and I'm sure you'll recognise it- very popular for amatuer motorsport enthusiasts. Then take your camera to the track and enjoy.

Then you have two lenses that cover the 18-200 (28-320mm compared to the figures above for the compact) range.
 
mast3r said:
when you say twin lens option, you mean the info i posted up above?
Click to expand...

yup that will do it, you will get a range hole from 55-75 but I wouldnt worry too much about that

like the comment above said, 1000D is a great starter. I find live view useful especially when having to shoot with the camera away from my eye for composition, is this something you may need to do in crowds ...

either way 1000D great and if you can afford it 450D

personally I don't like changing lens much because of dust contamination and the chance I'll miss the shot I want while changes lens .. for that reason and others I went with the tamron but having the extended range impacts image quality, not significantly but enough to notice.
 
Last edited:
OK, so this time is even nearer. Took a Visit to Chester Zoo Yesterday, only to find my Camera jamming when zooming, it would just moan about Zoom Error until i gave the lens a clout, it clicked and worked again, until i wanted to change focus :s

GRRR.

OK, so...

1000d or 450d?

given the fact, if its the 450d ill have the stock lens for a good few months, and i am brand new to the DSLR scene + ill not be using the cam a GREAT deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom