Spec me a DSLR + Lens

[BUFF]

I guessed you'd appear with the same old response

because it/they are still valid - the bottom line is that both work roughly on a par overall with each having certain advantages/disadvantages over the other (indeed some of the same can be argued from both sides as an advantage/disadvantage).

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

& I'm sure that you'll agree that most people upgrade bodies more often than glass.
With a new body with in-body IS all your lenses get upgraded to the latest IS, with in-lens they don't.
I do wonder how many people are really going to handhold an 800mm though?

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

& with most lenses the A700 offers upto 4 stops.

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

Well, that's your opinion & you are entitled to it but it doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you or make it right.
Have an open mind - CaNikon aren't the only people who make good cameras/lenses & you can quite easily argue that they are probably the 2 least innovative (albeit perhaps better at delivering on the promise of some other company's idea).

 

[a1ex2001]

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?)

The pictures shouldn't look hugely different allthough a lot of people prefer the pictures out of the 30D for the lower noise profile due to the smaller number of mega pixels.

I got a second hand 30D instead of a 400D as for me it was just a much nicer piece of kit to use. It is noticeably bigger and heavier but neither camera is pocket size and the extra bulk improves the handling no end.

 

[Daniel75]

Why limit yourself to Canon/Nikon? What about Sony? I'm looking for the DSLR too and seriously considering this combination:
Sony A200 + Tamron 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 Di ll LD - total cost is around £650.

HERE you can see some A200 examples in various ISO.

What's even better is Sony's no interest credit (I'm thinking about adding PS3 to my shopping basket

 

[Cavallino]

Why limit yourself to Canon/Nikon? What about Sony? I'm looking for the DSLR too and seriously considering this combination:
Sony A200 + Tamron 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 Di ll LD - total cost is around £650.

HERE you can see some A200 examples in various ISO.

What's even better is Sony's no interest credit (I'm thinking about adding PS3 to my shopping basket

Not about limiting really, just want to go with the most proven. It seems Canon or Nikon are the best in the business (at least according to reviews and peoples experiences).

I'll take a look at that review. Thanks!

 

[BUFF]

Sony A200 + Tamron 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 Di ll LD - total cost is around £650.

The Tamron 18-250mm is very good for what it is but the Sony version is reckoned to be even better (albeit it is dearer).

 

[Cavallino]

Ok so went to my local camera shop. Had a play with the Canon Eos 400D and the Nikon D40.

Are these similarly speced? They certainly feel the same dimension wise.

And lastly, (have to be careful how to request this), can anyone point me in the direction of an online retailer who does these cameras at cheap prices?
(Please dont post them if they are a competitor to OCUK).

Thanks in advance!

 

[Aod]

Ok so went to my local camera shop. Had a play with the Canon Eos 400D and the Nikon D40.

Are these similarly speced? They certainly feel the same dimension wise.

And lastly, (have to be careful how to request this), can anyone point me in the direction of an online retailer who does these cameras at cheap prices?
(Please dont post them if they are a competitor to OCUK).

Thanks in advance!

the D40x is a direct competitor to the 400D. the D40 has less resolution (6.3 instead of 10).

unfortunately, as OcUK sell cameras, we can't recommend ANY camera shops.

 

[Cavallino]

the D40x is a direct competitor to the 400D. the D40 has less resolution (6.3 instead of 10).

unfortunately, as OcUK sell cameras, we can't recommend ANY camera shops.

Ah D40x! I see ok thanks for that Aod.

And I didnt know OCUK sold Cameras as well! Say no more.

 

[Cavallino]

From another forum:

Auto exposure bracketing and 9 point AF (as opposed to 3 on the Nikon). The Nikon does have spot metering that the Canon lacks but as a complete novice that hasn't been a problem so far!! In terms of Image quality, the reviews I read said the Nikon was slightly better but with my untrained eye I probably wouldn't be able to tell

So my questions are:

Auto Exposure bracketing? Whats this about?
Autofocus points? What are the advantages of more of these?
And what is spot metering?

Thanks

 

[blknoel]

Exposure bracketing allows you to press the shutter once and get 3 photos as outcome, with 3 different exposures, bracketted as you specified the increments (example: -1EV 0 +1EV, or -1/3EV 0 +1/3EV), advantage of that is for HDR work and foolproof against over/underexposing.

Next, autofocus points, people think the more AF points you have, the less likely you will miss a shot , but depending on shooting styles, some photographers only use the center point. For advanced amateurs bodies, Canon 40D currently has pretty good AF performance. (better than 20D)

For Canon systems, spot metering is weighted at the center covering about 3.5% area of the viewfinder.

 

[Andrew_McP]

Sorry about the hijack but how would the canon 30d + 70-300 IS compare to an Oly E510?

With the current deal on a 2 lens kit (about £450 from a site purely selling gadgetry <fx:whistles innocently>) it's a superb bit of kit IMO. For most people that'll be more than enough camera to keep them very busy indeed for a long time.

Of course if you intend buying a lot of lenses in the future, Canon or Nikon are probably a safer bet. Availability is never an issue. Those two brands also seem to offer the best autofocus performance if you get into action photography of any kind.

Andrew McP

 

[Cavallino]

Arrrgggh... I can't make up my mind.
I know its either the 400D or the D40x.

The Canon has more AF points and the sensor cleaner which the Canon doesnt.
But then the Canon's colours are more "vibrant" out of the box (wheres the Canon needs to be played around with a little - or so the reviews say).

And then theres the lack of "motorised lens function" for the Nikon (or words to that effect?)

And I was told that Nikon bodys only can accept Nikon lenses?


So lost

 

[Andrew_McP]

Arrrgggh... I can't make up my mind.
And I was told that Nikon bodys only can accept Nikon lenses?

So lost

It's hard work, isn't it. Spending money's supposed to be fun, but with so much choice (in everything!) these days it can soon turn into a chore.

All DSLRs can only accept lenses made for that manufacturer's style of bayonet mount. There used to be converters for film cameras, but these days life is more complicated and I don't think such things work properly (if at all) on digital bodies.

So whichever way you go, you're stuck with Canon or Nikon (or Pentax or whatever) flavoured lenses. Makers like Tamron and Sigma supply the same lens in different mounts, but you still can't swap them from one make of camera to another. If it wasn't for this poxy limitation life as a photographer would be superb... though it might have led to one manufacturer taking over the camera world, so maybe it's helped us as (in an Intel/AMD kind of way) well. Who knows.

Anyway, the lack of a motor in some basic cameras complicates life again, meaning you can't autofocus using older lenses (which are driven by a screwy wossit sticking out of the camera mount into the lens). However there's a wide range of kit available now for digital cameras, so I'd be less concerned about this than some. I know many people end up with huge collections of lenses, but while I understand the urge to collect them, in practice you'll end up using one or two most of the time.

So... the best thing to do is probably to let your hands make the decision. Visit a camera shop, handle the cameras you're thinking about, and just commit to the one which feels best in your hands. It's a tool, after all, and it's you who'll be making the important decisions... like where to point it and when!

So try not to get too hung up on this buying decision. Says the man who's spent two months trying to decide between a move from Pentax to Canon or Nikon with either the 40D or D300! Do as I say, not as I do.

Andrew McP

 

[BUFF]

All DSLRs can only accept lenses made for that manufacturer's style of bayonet mount. There used to be converters for film cameras, but these days life is more complicated and I don't think such things work properly (if at all) on digital bodies.

there are still adapters for using many different types of lens mount on another - albeit you usually lose AF etc.
1 of the old KM/Sony guys who recently bought a Canon 5D is now using Leica & Zeiss lenses via adapters with it because he's been very disappointed by the optical standard of Canon wide angle lenses.

 

[Cavallino]

It's hard work, isn't it. Spending money's supposed to be fun, but with so much choice (in everything!) these days it can soon turn into a chore.

All DSLRs can only accept lenses made for that manufacturer's style of bayonet mount. There used to be converters for film cameras, but these days life is more complicated and I don't think such things work properly (if at all) on digital bodies.

So whichever way you go, you're stuck with Canon or Nikon (or Pentax or whatever) flavoured lenses. Makers like Tamron and Sigma supply the same lens in different mounts, but you still can't swap them from one make of camera to another. If it wasn't for this poxy limitation life as a photographer would be superb... though it might have led to one manufacturer taking over the camera world, so maybe it's helped us as (in an Intel/AMD kind of way) well. Who knows.

Anyway, the lack of a motor in some basic cameras complicates life again, meaning you can't autofocus using older lenses (which are driven by a screwy wossit sticking out of the camera mount into the lens). However there's a wide range of kit available now for digital cameras, so I'd be less concerned about this than some. I know many people end up with huge collections of lenses, but while I understand the urge to collect them, in practice you'll end up using one or two most of the time.

So... the best thing to do is probably to let your hands make the decision. Visit a camera shop, handle the cameras you're thinking about, and just commit to the one which feels best in your hands. It's a tool, after all, and it's you who'll be making the important decisions... like where to point it and when!

So try not to get too hung up on this buying decision. Says the man who's spent two months trying to decide between a move from Pentax to Canon or Nikon with either the 40D or D300! Do as I say, not as I do.

Andrew McP

In all the years of using forums, Ive never had a comforting post such as this

Thanks Andrew McP (and also thanks Buff!)

So just to clarify, the motorised aspect of the lens, is this an older feature? I mean, what are the advantages to getting a camera which supports motorised lenses?

And finally, should I be hung up about this "sensor cleaning" business? The has it whereas the Nikon doesnt. Does this mean I have to clean the innards manually or something? (as opposed to the Canon which cleans it on startup and shut down?)

Thanks again for your input guys

 

[Messiah Khan]

In all the years of using forums, Ive never had a comforting post such as this

Thanks Andrew McP (and also thanks Buff!)

So just to clarify, the motorised aspect of the lens, is this an older feature? I mean, what are the advantages to getting a camera which supports motorised lenses?

And finally, should I be hung up about this "sensor cleaning" business? The has it whereas the Nikon doesnt. Does this mean I have to clean the innards manually or something? (as opposed to the Canon which cleans it on startup and shut down?)

Thanks again for your input guys

The lack of focus motor means you can only autofocus using newer lenses with inbuilt focus motor. This means that if you want to autofocus you can't use older (and sometimes cheaper) lenses. Most new lenses are now being made with an inbuilt motor as its faster and quieter. For me the lack of a focus motor isn't an issue at all, for other people it is.

As for sensor cleaning, I wouldn't worry about this at all. While it may help a bit, you are likely to need to manually clean the sensor eventually anyway, regardless of wether your camera has sensor cleaning or not. If the idea of this scares you, its not as hard as it sounds and you can always sent it off for cleaning if you want.

 

[Cavallino]

The lack of focus motor means you can only autofocus using newer lenses with inbuilt focus motor. This means that if you want to autofocus you can't use older (and sometimes cheaper) lenses. Most new lenses are now being made with an inbuilt motor as its faster and quieter. For me the lack of a focus motor isn't an issue at all, for other people it is.

As for sensor cleaning, I wouldn't worry about this at all. While it may help a bit, you are likely to need to manually clean the sensor eventually anyway, regardless of wether your camera has sensor cleaning or not. If the idea of this scares you, its not as hard as it sounds and you can always sent it off for cleaning if you want.

Thanks for your post MK!

Ok so long as my lens is a fairly recent one, it should be "motorised".
I assume the default lens that comes with the Nikon and Canon are self motorised?

Sensor Cleaning - So you're saying that regardless of internal cleaning mechanism, I will need to every once in awhile clean the innards?
Or is this a job best taken care of by camera shops and the like?

 

[Messiah Khan]

Thanks for your post MK!

Ok so long as my lens is a fairly recent one, it should be "motorised".
I assume the default lens that comes with the Nikon and Canon are self motorised?

Sensor Cleaning - So you're saying that regardless of internal cleaning mechanism, I will need to every once in awhile clean the innards?
Or is this a job best taken care of by camera shops and the like?

For lenses with internal motors, you want ot look out for;

Nikon - AFS, AFI
Sigma - HSM
Canon - USM

Yeah, even with the internal cleaning you will probably need to clean it properly eventually. You can do it yourself, but make sure you read how to do it properly first and use the correct cleaning kit. Sending it off is much easier, but also costs money and leaves you without a camera for a while.

 

[BUFF]

Most new lenses are now being made with an inbuilt motor as its faster and quieter.

Quieter, yes.
Faster, not necessarily.
As I'm sure that you know there are different types of in-lens motor with different performance.
Similarly with screw driven you have 2 variables in the strength of the in-body motor & the gearing of the lens.

I'm another who doesn't really care but if you did a lot of e.g. weddings in churches then quieter is obviously preferrable all other things being equal.

 

[Andrew_McP]

And finally, should I be hung up about this "sensor cleaning" business?

Dusty sensors were why I hesitated a long time before buying a DSLR, and I was paranoid for ages after getting it. But as long as you take sensible precautions (not changing lenses while emptying the Dyson) it doesn't have to be a major problem... especially if you avoid smoky environments. I've never checked, but I'm sure smokers (or those living with smokers in the house) must have more problems with dust than non-smokers. You're bound to get faint traces of tar knocking around in the air in the house, and that's going to help dust stick more stubbornly to everything, including internal bits of your camera.

So far I've only had to use a blower on mine, and the dust has moved readily. I do have some Eclipse fluid and Pec pads (widely recommended & available via ebay) but to be honest I'm not that convinced by the combination, having use it to clean similar things to try it out. You have to be careful about using cleaning fluids on some types of sensor as well, so it can be a bit of a nightmare.

This is why P&S cameras are so popular. Cheaper and less hassle! In fact why am I thinking of buying into a new camera system?

Oh yes, I remember. Because my P&S usually only takes pictures of empty sky instead of the aircraft that was in it a moment ago!

Anyway, it's worth doing a lot of Googling on the subject of sensor cleaning. It's a hotly debated subject, and everyone has their own solution, but it's an integral part of owning a DSLR. The various automated cleaning systems on offer all help, but none of the work on all dust all of the time... or even most of the dust most of the time from what I read. But any help's better than none, so it's worth bearing in mind as a factor when buying.

Andrew McP