Spec me a DSLR + Lens

Cavallino

Cavallino

Cavallino

Soldato
Joined
8 Dec 2004
Posts
15,060
Location
Hampshire
Ok! So Im totally new to this field and I understand that its not the camera that captures aethetically pleasing pictures but the photographer him/herself.

So! I have around 600 pounds to burn and it will be the first time that I use DSLR (or SLR for that matter!) cameras.

I popped into the local camera shop and had a play with the Canon 400D. The general concensus seems to be that you cant go wrong with Canon or Nikon. But if you could specifically give me some possible options in terms of model and any potential lenses that would be smashing.

(Note I would like to take some pictures of wildlife such as squirels and birds as well that hang around in my back garden, so Im guessing a beefy lense maybe needed?

Finally, if anything I have said is factually incorrect please excuse me, I am a total rookie in this field and just starting.

Many thanks in advance!
 
The 400D is a great camera and you wouldn't be disappointed with it. It might be worth waiting a bit until the 450D comes out in the shops, though, as it's likely to bring the price of the 400D down quite a bit.

The battery grip for the 400D (BG-E3) is a great addition to the camera and makes the handing much easier - in terms of the size of the grip and with additional buttons for portrait shots. As above, the 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens but if you're going to be into wildlife shots mostly, then it might not be a useful purchase. For wildlife, you'll generally be needing 300mm+. As you've probably seen, one of the best budget lenses that does 300mm is the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro. For the price, it's a great lens and can produce some excellent shots.

Hope that helps a bit.
 
Now i'm expecting to be corrected here as i generally know little about photography, but i'm in the process of trying to learn. But, my choice if you have ~ £600 to spend, a 400D body only can be had for £350 brand new and a certain "Kerso" fella (the auction man) can do a 70-200 F4L for around £330 delivered if you ask nicely. Total of £680 and a lovely lens to start your wildlife photography with.
 
Many thanks for your contribution guys.

Yes I did see the 450D which is probably not a whole lot different to the 400D (I think 12MP or so?). So it would be good for me if it drives the price of the 400D down a little bit more.

As for the D80, isnt this a bit pricey?

And finally, lenses. 300mm, how many times magnification would that equal to? Im looking for a lense that not only zooms good but also has very good quality and clarity, so I dont mind spending as much as the camera on the lens (makes sense right?)

Once again, thanks for your help in advance :)
 
Cavallino said:
And finally, lenses. 300mm, how many times magnification would that equal to? Im looking for a lense that not only zooms good but also has very good quality and clarity
Click to expand...
Very good quality lenses of 300mm or higher are expensive.
You can however get good results from lenses around the £400 bracket.

The Canon 70-300mm IS is a superb starter lens for wildlife and costs around £380.
 
SDK^ said:
Very good quality lenses of 300mm or higher are expensive.
You can however get good results from lenses around the £400 bracket.

The Canon 70-300mm IS is a superb starter lens for wildlife and costs around £380.
Click to expand...

Flip didn't think that the 70-300 IS was THAT much :eek:.

Blackvault
 
Cavallino said:
Whats the significance of the IS part?
Click to expand...

when shooting telephoto, you need a very high shutter speed (1/250 or higher!) so that you don't have camera shake.

IS or VR makes one of the elements inside the lens move to counteract the vibration/shake of the lens, allowing you to effectively shoot with a shutter speed thats about 2 to 2 1/2 stops slower than normal :)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm
 
Sorry about the hijack but how would the canon 30d + 70-300 IS compare to an Oly E510? Ignoring the slight mega pixel difference anyone got any experience of the image quality of either and the effectiveness of the inbuilt IS of the oly vs IS lenses (nikon/cannon). Have been looking at the E510 for a while and with the recent price drops it is very tempting but the limited lens choice has been holding me back and I've found the 30d for a pretty good price.
 
^ Go for the 30D

Lens IS is better for longer focal lengths - more movement is required to correct stability which sensor IS can't match.
 
SDK^ said:
^ Go for the 30D

Lens IS is better for longer focal lengths - more movement is required to correct stability which sensor IS can't match.
Click to expand...

Hmm 30D you say?
Is there anything technically different between it and the 400D?
Are they the same size? I noticed the 40D is quite chunkier compared to the 400D.
 
SDK^ said:
Lens IS is better for longer focal lengths - more movement is required to correct stability which sensor IS can't match.
Click to expand...
This will be from the same people that said that sensor based IS on a FF sensor wasn't possible - until Sony did it.
Of course there are commercial reasons why they would want to spread fud.
Canon claim 2 stops improvement for both of their 400mm IS prime lens (couldn't find figures for 500mm & 600mm).
Sony say that the Minolta 600mm f4.0 fitted on an A700 gains ~2.5 stops (personally I don't fancy handholding a 600/f4 too much ;)).

Both systems work - the main difference is that sensor based IS is available on all lenses as opposed to on a relatively few with in-lens.
 
Last edited:
Messiah Khan said:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...e&cameras=canon_eos400d,canon_eos30d&show=all
:)
Click to expand...


Perfect! Thanks!

2 questions

What is the significance of:

1. Max Shutter (30D is 1/8000 400D is 1/4000)
2. ISO Rating (highest on 30D is 3200, on 400D its 1600)

It seems the 30D is a bit chunkier but apart from the above, there isnt a whole lot of difference?
(Except composition also ofcourse).

EDIT: Looking at the pictures that were taken with each camera.
Is it me or do the 30D pictures look miles better than the 400D? Surely its not the base only but the lense?(and photographer?)
 
Last edited:
BUFF said:
This will be from the same people that said that sensor based IS on a FF sensor wasn't possible - until Sony did it.
Of course there are commercial reasons why they would want to spread fud.
Canon claim 2 stops improvement for both of their 400mm IS prime lens (couldn't find figures for 500mm & 600mm).
Sony say that the Minolta 600mm f4.0 fitted on an A700 gains ~2.5 stops (personally I don't fancy handholding a 600/f4 too much ;)).
Click to expand...
I guessed you'd appear with the same old response :p ;)

The Canon 400, 500 and 600mm are all older IS technology (approx 1999/2000). The latest Canon 800mm IS offers 4 stops of stabilisation. I'd like to see the Sony full frame (yet to be released) sensor match that ;)

The cheaper lens being discussed in this thread (70-300 IS) offers 3 stops of stabilisation.

I personally think amateurs prefer in body stabilisation - all lenses have IS, cheaper etc and Pro's go for lens stabilisation - fine tuned to each lens [more effective] etc
 
Cavallino said:
What is the significance of:

1. Max Shutter (30D is 1/8000 400D is 1/4000)
2. ISO Rating (highest on 30D is 3200, on 400D its 1600)
Click to expand...
  1. Max shutter isn't really an issue unless you're photographing bullets ;) 1/4000 on the 400D is more than enough.
  2. The higher ISO on the 30D is very useful - allows more light to the sensor which means a 1 stop faster shutter speed. There is probably a hack to enable ISO3200 for the 400D around somewhere.

My suggestion for the 30D was in response to your question - Olympus E150 or Canon 30D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom