Time for a DSLR

Spitfir3 · 22 May 2007 at 22:50

Hi ladies,

In August, last year, I got a S5600 due to the advice from this great forum

So, i've learn't a lot about photography since then and i've def. noticed a big improvement since I started but i'm really noticing the limitations of it. I'm generally into aviation photography and yesterday, I was there to see a 747 coming in. There was still some reasonably good light but as usual, it failed to focus. Some pics that did, were high ISO so I got an awful lot of noise.

So basically, I want to get a DSLR - but which one?

Also, im not too sure about how they all work, can you achieve any optical zoom with the stock lens? Does the viewfinder give a live image?

Thanks!

dirtybeatfreak · 23 May 2007 at 02:15

according to what i have read ( i been looking up the same subject even tho im not gettin a slr yet

) , all DSLR cams are good, its about what feels comfortable and is within your price range... d40 seems to get mentioned a fair bit as a entry level slr...maybe look that up?? i think its the lenses that are important more....some1 correct me if im wrong pls

A.N.Other · 23 May 2007 at 08:26

alangelluk said:
according to what i have read ( i been looking up the same subject even tho im not gettin a slr yet ) , all DSLR cams are good, its about what feels comfortable and is within your price range... d40 seems to get mentioned a fair bit as a entry level slr...maybe look that up?? i think its the lenses that are important more....some1 correct me if im wrong pls

That's a pretty fair statement. Lenses are important and with the best camera in the world, if you don't have a decent lens, you'll still get rubbish pictures. However, when you do have a decent lens, it will only highlight the downsides of any particular camera you have, which is why good professional bodies are so expensive.

The kit lens on a canon or nikon is a zoom lens, 17-55mm on both I believe (though I know nothing about the nikon range, so I might be wrong there) and it's generally said that 50mm is about the magnification seen through the human eye. For aviation photos, you'll be needing a much longer lens, really - a 70-300 would probably start you of nicely. It largely depends on your budget - do you have one?

Spitfir3 · 23 May 2007 at 09:54

A.N.Other said:
That's a pretty fair statement. Lenses are important and with the best camera in the world, if you don't have a decent lens, you'll still get rubbish pictures. However, when you do have a decent lens, it will only highlight the downsides of any particular camera you have, which is why good professional bodies are so expensive.

The kit lens on a canon or nikon is a zoom lens, 17-55mm on both I believe (though I know nothing about the nikon range, so I might be wrong there) and it's generally said that 50mm is about the magnification seen through the human eye. For aviation photos, you'll be needing a much longer lens, really - a 70-300 would probably start you of nicely. It largely depends on your budget - do you have one?

Not really

but, perhaps £400 the limit. Looking around at some other websites it doesn't really seem possible with £400 eh?

I'm looking at ordering one today, but im really confused.. reviews are longwinded and dont really come down to a clear winner when it comes to the Canon 350D or Nikon D40.

ScarySquirrel · 23 May 2007 at 10:00

How about go into a local shop and see if they have those models for you to look at, as said above it might be more down to what you're comfortable with, both will be great camera's.

If you can pick up one 2nd hand possibly then it might leave you with enough funds for a 70-300mm lens. Something like a Sigma 70-300mm which for the price is apparently very good. You might go slightly over budget but I think you'll be pleased you did.

What do others think of the Sigma 70-300mm APO?

glitch · 23 May 2007 at 10:04

[SpItFiRe-Ace] said:
reviews are longwinded and dont really come down to a clear winner when it comes to the Canon 350D or Nikon D40.

Forget image quality when deciding between Nikon and Canon - handling is probably the most important issue to decide upon. Some people love how Canon's handle and some love how Nikon's do; very few get on equally with both. IQ will come into it at some stage but not just yet.

You really ought to go into a shop and have a play with both and see what feels 'right' before committing to a purchase.

Spitfir3 · 23 May 2007 at 10:35

glitch said:
Forget image quality when deciding between Nikon and Canon - handling is probably the most important issue to decide upon. Some people love how Canon's handle and some love how Nikon's do; very few get on equally with both. IQ will come into it at some stage but not just yet.

You really ought to go into a shop and have a play with both and see what feels 'right' before committing to a purchase.

Mm I went into some camera shop in Chester yesterday, they didnt seem particulary keen to get one out for me :rolleyes:

BTW, these lenses, do you have to manually twist the thing to focus it or is it a half press on the errr.. shutter button thingy?

I found a Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC (Canon AF) for £116 on a competitors website - would that be good for a 350D?

I apologies for my ignorance on the subject

glitch · 23 May 2007 at 10:40

[SpItFiRe-Ace] said:
Mm I went into some camera shop in Chester yesterday, they didnt seem particulary keen to get one out for me

What a pathetic attitude to have.

[SpItFiRe-Ace] said:
BTW, these lenses, do you have to manually twist the thing to focus it or is it a half press on the errr.. shutter button thingy?

All lenses have an AF/MF switch. Switched to AF and the camera will do the work for you (the half-press you describe) and on MF you'll be responsible for the focusing. You can probably work out what the two acronyms stand for!

ichabod crane · 23 May 2007 at 11:52

probably just repeating what a lot of people have said, but if your just entering the DSLR stakes there are only really 3 cameras to look at the 350D and D40 within your budget easily and the 400D bit over budget but all new technology. For avition a long telephoto lense is in order, the sigma APO 70-300 gets excellent reviews and will do just *** you need. As for quality all 3 of them cameras are pretty much equals its down to what suites you, your budget may fly out the window when you want to upgrade to better lenses but thats all part of the future.

A.N.Other · 23 May 2007 at 12:03

ichabod crane said:
For avition a long telephoto lense is in order, the sigma APO 70-300 gets excellent reviews and will do just *** you need.

Yep. I've got the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro and I think that for the price, it's a great lens, with the added functionality of a 'macro' (not true 1:1) mode. At 300mm and f/5.6, it's a little soft, but it's not much to worry about and for the price, as I said, it can't be beaten. Having been using that for a while now, with a lot of the shooting I do for plays, it doesn't have a wide enough aperture (f/4 max), so in the reasonably near future I'm looking to get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, with an extender to make up the range loss.

Both Sigma and Tamron do a good 70-300, but in most reviews the APO sigma gets a better result.

Tonks · 23 May 2007 at 12:19

One thing worth mentioning is that the Nikon D40 has no autofocus built into the body whereas the Canon 350/400 does. What that means is that the autofocus motor needs to be built into the lens (for the Nikon D40) and that seriously limits what lenses you can buy should you decide to expand upon your lens collection.

Just for that reason alone I would dismiss the Nikon D40 and look at either a Nikon D50 and higher or one of the Canons.

Please correct me someone if i'm wrong in this....

glitch · 23 May 2007 at 12:24

You are correct, Tonks. You will only get AF with Nikon AF-S and AF-I lenses.

Messiah Khan · 23 May 2007 at 12:28

glitch said:
You are correct, Tonks. You will only get AF with Nikon AF-S and AF-I lenses.

And Sigma HSM lenses.

glitch · 23 May 2007 at 12:40

I didn't know that - mind you, you've got one (D40) haven't you?

Bolerus · 23 May 2007 at 12:41

I am quite surprised that the D40 hasnt harmed the nikon market quite a bit, but it seems that people still consider it even with the autofocus problem.

The oher option for you (the OP) may be the new olympus bridge camera that has the 18X zoom

I think they are around the £300 price mark, and if you dont really need a DSLR then that might be an option. I have no idea how they react in low light conditions.

Or perhaps the fuji 9600, which has a twist manual focus (just like a real DSLR) so that would compensate for the auto focus struggling in low light (they can be had for around 250 i beleive)

Or look on the net for a refurbished Nikon D50 (mine cost £267 with kit lens, and it had never been previously used, or even out of the box by the looks of it) then get a 70- 300 lens, (can get them off ebay for as little as £60)

and your away, well in your budget, without limiting your lenses to d40 compatable ones.

A.N.Other · 23 May 2007 at 12:46

It's not a massive problem really, as there are more and more lenses with built in AF coming out. However, it is an inconvenience, as it does limit your choices. For £30 or so difference between the D40 and the 350D (or a bit more for the 400D), if you like the feel of the body, I'd personally go for the Canon.

I bought a 350D having tried the Nikons they had in the shop as well. I've got fairly large hands and I found the 350D a fairly nice camera to hold. However, later on I got a battery grip for it (mainly for the portrait controls) and I have to say that with the grip, it's a completely different camera. I could never now go back to having a smaller body.

Messiah Khan · 23 May 2007 at 13:10

glitch said:
I didn't know that - mind you, you've got one (D40) haven't you?

Ive got a D40x, but its essentially the same camera. HSM is just Sigmas version of AF-S. The lack of interal focus motor did niggle at the back of my mind when I bought it(And still does a little) but the more I look at lenses I want, they are all turning out to be AF-S/HSM lenses anyway(10mm-20mm Sigma, 105mm Nikkor VR, 150mm Sigma). The way I look at it, is that its a great starter DSLR. Its light, easy to use and has most features you would want when starting. Im going to be buying some new lenses for it (AF-S/HSM), which will still be compatible if I ever upgrade to something like a D200. it also seems like more and more lenses will use AF-S/HSM technology, and we may eventually see all new lenses being this type.

BUFF · 23 May 2007 at 13:49

another DSLR to consider around the £400 mark is the Sony A100.
1 advantage that it has over the CaNikon offerings is image stabilisation built into the body so that all lenses become stabilised when fitted to it.
That can be very useful in reducing blur due to camera shake that is more prevalent with longer lenses such as used in aviation photography.

Howski · 23 May 2007 at 16:01

Yea the IS is nice on the sony but IIRC the noise is pretty bad. Most people these days (including me!) seem to be going for the 400D. Have a look at DPreview they do great reviews there and look at the test images.
-How.

BUFF · 23 May 2007 at 16:27

Howski said:
Yea the IS is nice on the sony but IIRC the noise is pretty bad.

It's imo (& I've used one specifically for aviation photography)) been overly exaggerated.
Noise & detail/resolution are linked & part of the camera's design decision is how those are balanced/optimised - the Sony will show more detail than either the Nikon or the Canon but that means that it is a bit noisier at higher ISO (remember that it actually uses the same CCD as the Nikon D40X).
Sure if you are going to be using ISO1600 or 3200 regularly then the Canon may be the better choice but then again with IS you typically gain a couple of stops so you don't need to step up the ISO as much ...

On the other hand imo it handles better than the 400D.