Joining the Ranks of DSLR Owners [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

dalstitch45

03-06-2011, 02:19 PM

Hey Diser's,

I am looking at buying a DSLR camera. I will list the things I need this cameras to do, and maybe get some direction on the camera to buy. I have been reading the threads on this board, and they seem to lean more toward the Nikon line. With that said, these are the things/qualities I need from the camera:

1. I take lots of fireworks pictures at Disney.

2. Something that takes pictures in low lighting, or inside the theaters/shows.

3. Something that takes good action photos.

4. I take pictures at football games (NFL). Need something that would not necessarily need additional lenses at the game.

Other than the football games, having different lens is not an issue. I just want to be able to take good pictures. Everything I have seen is in the $600 to $800 range, plus any additional lenses I would need.

I really know nothing about which camera I should buy. I would be going from an EasyShare Camera, and the pictures I take from the my Sony Handycam. I am going to take a basic photography class, but I won't start until next week. Any help would be appreciated from you guys, the experts.

ukcatfan

03-06-2011, 02:32 PM

Check out the Pentax K-r. You will get a faster burst rate for the money than you get with Canon or Nikon. That will be a very nice feature for action shots. The K-r with 18-55mm and 50-300mm is $847.45 from Adorama right now. http://www.adorama.com/IPXKRBKT3A.html Then for low light, they have the Pentax SMCP-DA 35mm f/2.4 for $219.95 http://www.adorama.com/PX3524.html

Also give Sony a look because they also offer a little more for your money compared to Canon and Nikon. With the big names comes big name premium pricing for comparable features. Unless you plan on being a professional, there will be about anything you need available in all brands. If you do plan on be a pro, then Canon or Nikon are are the way to go. Of the two, I prefer Nikon.

dalstitch45

03-06-2011, 03:33 PM

Thanks ukcatfan. At this point, I haven't thought about being a pro. I will check those out.

Anewman

03-06-2011, 05:02 PM

When it comes to Action and NFL games, yes burst rate is important... But the differences are not huge and lens selection was much more important for me.

When I was shopping around Canon and Nikon were the only real option for my type of shooting. Yes there are third party lenses, but all the sports shooters I talked to mentioned focus is noticeably inferior to those nice Nikon and Canon lenses.

Decide what lenses are on your list... Every single sports shooter I know(bout a hundred) owns a 70-200mm 2.8

photo_chick

03-06-2011, 05:03 PM

Any of the entry level DSLR cameras on up paired with the right lens can do what you listed. I do agree that you get the most for your money with a Pentax.

Gabrielsbigtrip

03-06-2011, 05:03 PM

I just bought my first DSLR camera! I was really looking at the Nikon D3100 because I had read that it was very user friendly and a great starter camera.

Well, I believe I read UKCATFAN suggest the Pentax K-X in another thread. I started researching that and decided on that one.

The cheapest I could find was at Tristate Camera for $465 then use 5OFF as a coupon code and it comes down to $460, free shipping Ground and no tax :banana: That was for the Chocolate or Beige.

I have NO IDEA if that would be an option for you but I was so happy with the price that I had to share....

Thanks UKCATFAN:goodvibes

ukcatfan

03-06-2011, 06:32 PM

4. I take pictures at football games (NFL). Need something that would not necessarily need additional lenses at the game.

Other than the football games, having different lens is not an issue. I just want to be able to take good pictures. Everything I have seen is in the $600 to $800 range, plus any additional lenses I would need.

When it comes to Action and NFL games, yes burst rate is important... But the differences are not huge and lens selection was much more important for me.

When I was shopping around Canon and Nikon were the only real option for my type of shooting. Yes there are third party lenses, but all the sports shooters I talked to mentioned focus is noticeably inferior to those nice Nikon and Canon lenses.

Decide what lenses are on your list... Every single sports shooter I know(bout a hundred) owns a 70-200mm 2.8

I could be wrong, but I am guessing based on the things I bolded above that this person is not interested in a over $2k lens at this point.

ukcatfan

03-06-2011, 06:36 PM

Anewman

03-06-2011, 08:21 PM

I could be wrong, but I am guessing based on the things I bolded above that this person is not interested in a over $2k lens at this point.

Correct... Not at this point, but if one is a sports shooter there may come a point down the road. Just pointing out what should be a consideration when buying into a system with action and sports in mind.

And you must be talking about IS lenses, IS is not really used for action and sports unless one wants subject blur. For the most part, sports demand higher shutter speeds.

On the used market one can find Canon 70-200mm F:2.8 non IS for under $1,000, the sigma versions are usable but not equal and tamron focus is way too slow.

ukcatfan

03-06-2011, 08:49 PM

Correct... Not at this point, but if one is a sports shooter there may come a point down the road. Just pointing out what should be a consideration when buying into a system with action and sports in mind.

And you must be talking about IS lenses, IS is not really used for action and sports unless one wants subject blur. For the most part, sports demand higher shutter speeds.

On the used market one can find Canon 70-200mm F:2.8 non IS for under $1,000, the sigma versions are usable but not equal and tamron focus is way too slow.

True that people should consider their future when making a decision, but I always throw one thing in to that argument. If upgrading to advanced equipment in the future, something like a kit lens and other inexpensive lenses would be replaced anyway along with the new professional quality body. I have four lenses for my K-x and if I wanted to upgrade to a higher grade body, I would only want to keep using one of them. So at the worst I would be without one $200 lens if I switched brands, which is not exactly a big deal if I were buying a camera for over $1k.

I don't know all that much about the Canon lenses, but I thought the $2k+ lens was the one that most people bought and loved so much. I know that IS is not useful for action, but I thought I heard that there was something else better about the IS one compared to the $1,400 model. Adding IS for $800 is a pretty hefty premium for just that. :scared1:

Anewman

03-06-2011, 09:00 PM

If upgrading to advanced equipment in the future, something like a kit lens and other inexpensive lenses would be replaced anyway along with the new professional quality body.

I cant afford to replace all my equipment at once, I bought my lenses for my old body... Just replacing the body to use with my existing lenses.

If I could afford to replace body and lenses at the same time, I would.

ukcatfan

03-07-2011, 04:44 AM

I cant afford to replace all my equipment at once, I bought my lenses for my old body... Just replacing the body to use with my existing lenses.

If I could afford to replace body and lenses at the same time, I would.

That is not my point. What I am saying is that basic entry level lenses are not good enough for a higher end body. If that is what you have and you upgrade your body then you are not going to want to continue using those lenses. (I am relatively certain that you do not just have entry level gear, so you are not in this position) Have you ever seen someone with a 7D using a 18-55mm kit lens? I have not and doubt that there is anyone doing it. So, if in the future I want to move up to a higher level of gear, it is almost certainly going to be at around the same time I want to upgrade the body. Maybe not the same day, but around the same time. Since I am really only invested in entry level gear, I can switch brands easily. I actually made this decision myself a year ago when I upgraded my body to the K-x. It is still entry level, but I considered switching brands since it would not cost me that much more to replace everything.

Just the same, you don't see very many people using high end lenses on entry level bodies. About the minimum I notice for those people are like a 50D for Canon or D90 for Nikon. It is because most people willing to drop over a grand on a lens is willing to go the extra bit to upgrade the body to something above entry level. Keep in mind also that while this stuff is not cheap, compared to other hobbies like golf, even high end gear is less than many people spend on their hobbies.

Anewman

03-07-2011, 10:11 AM

That is not my point. What I am saying is that basic entry level lenses are not good enough for a higher end body....

Not my point either...

Nothing wrong with buying a entry or mid level camera with kit lens AT THIS POINT, and then saving to buy a NICE lens at some POINT DOWN THE ROAD.

You implied that if they buy a sub $800 body at THIS POINT and later they need a NICE lens they would upgrade body at the same time anyways, some of us cant afford that.

"If upgrading to advanced equipment in the future, something like a kit lens and other inexpensive lenses would be replaced anyway along with the new professional quality body."

Just the same, you don't see very many people using high end lenses on entry level bodies.

I see it all the time.

I would take good glass on a entry level body vs high end body with entry level glass...

But you are free to disagree on all points, I am good with it.

Code

03-07-2011, 11:59 AM

I agree with the gist of what ukcatfan is saying. Unless your goal in photography is shooting professionally, and soon, it shouldn't really factor into your brand choice. (and when you're talking about professionally shooting professional sports, you're in the realm of $5k camera bodies w/ $5k lenses attached).

Also agree that you'll get more for your money at the entry level with Pentax or Sony. Pentax has some really fantastic entry level models now and a great (and more affordable) lens lineup. Sony has the new SLT tech that gives very fast burst rates and the best AF (by far) during video, with the "tradeoff" being an electronic viewfinder (I own the Sony A55 and don't consider the EVF a downside at all anymore - I've actually started preferring it).

I plan to shoot portraits professionally someday, and I know that eventually it'll mean that I will have to dump all my APS-C glass, go full frame and do some heavy lens investment, but for now in the years that I've been learning, having body-IS has saved me a LOT of money.

zackiedawg

03-07-2011, 01:21 PM

Just to add to the point, there are many levels of what can be called 'professional'...there are career photographers with contracts who earn regular salary/pay, there are freelancers who can be very successful earning a living, there are freelancers not quite earning a healthy living but devoted to the cause, and there are those who don't earn nearly enough to live on, and use photography as a supplementary income. How much camera or lens any individual needs isn't just based on the label 'professional', but on their very specific types of shooting, and how often that type of shooting must be done.

No question, those in the first category should get themselves into the Canon or Nikon system, and never look back - those two companies have full pro bodies built for ridiculous abuse and high shutter actuations, with full pro support with dedicated lines, overnight lens replacement on-site, and more. I think we can all agree this class of photographer likely represents all of roughly 1% of the photograph-taking world. Or less. It probably represents .0001% of all Disboard members, or less.

Those in the second category would probably still need to stick with Canon or Nikon - their only source of income still comes from photography, and they cannot risk any downtime - the pro support would be the biggest selling factor, along with specialty lens needs that would be hard to find or service with any other brand. I'd venture a guess that we're still under 5% of the total photograph-taking world, and likely still less than 1% of Disboards for this class of photographer.

Once you get into the other 'professional' class of photographer, the need to stick with Canon or Nikon pretty much fades to a choice or desire, rather than a necessity. They have advantages, unquestionably - they have more bodies to choose from, more lenses currently available to choose from, and easier access to rental lenses or sharing/borrowing lenses from others, since more people are shooting with those two brands. They make fine cameras that are very capable. However, the other brands have their advantages too, and a professional who isn't in the top tiers might find the advantages of Pentax or Sony suit their needs well, even better than Canon or Nikon. They too make fine cameras, and have specialized features like in-body stabilization or fast live view systems with phase detect AF, that can make them stand out against competitors. And though not as many current lenses, both Pentax and Sony have good legacy lenses available with good backwards compatibility, including that in-body stabilization perk which allows even old manual lenses or fast primes to still get stabilized.

I am a 'professional' photographer, by other than the top 2 definitions above. I earn money from photography, but don't earn a living with it. I have found for my needs that the Sony DSLR system works perfectly - the advantages of the system outweigh the disadvantages for me, and I have been able to satisfy my need for very good 'pro' level glass by dipping into the Minolta G APO lens legacy, which was Minolta's pro level glass similar to Canon's L glass - heavy metal bodies, top-grade optics, lots of adjustability. I can keep my large lens collection, and move to different bodies (as I've already done once) to move up to the next evolution of technology, in order to get things like high ISO capabilities and burst speed advances (my first body couldn't shoot well above ISO1600 and was 3fps...my current body shoots well to ISO6400 and can go up to 7fps).

Just to put things in perspective. I often see reference made to moving away from the 'entry-level' as being a sign of a beginner becoming a real photographer, and how once a person gets to this level of skill and realization, they're only going to be well served by a Canon or a Nikon. Often, this advice generalizes by classifying all photographers in only two categories - beginner, or career professional. It misses the many levels in between, of advanced beginners, growing enthusiasts, super-skilled non-professionals, light pros, secondary-income pros, freelance pros for social events, freelance periodical staff photographers, and right on up to full pro sports photogs or nature/wildlife photogs. The line that cuts off all other brands, and leaves Canon and Nikon firmly as the only two reasonable or rational choices, is much higher up than some may be led to believe - one can grow to far beyond a beginner, and even become a 'professional photographer', with Olympus, Sony, and Pentax as well, and even do so successfully, happily, and in some respects, even better than they might do with the big two brands...with room to step up bodies or start moving into serious lenses. Only once someone moves to the pro leagues where your living is fully dependent on your photography, where professional support is vital to keeping your job or putting food on the table, or where your photographic needs become so specialized that only one brand even makes the specific lens or camera function that you need, does one need to start crossing other brands off their list, and stick with the big two.

Daisy14'sDH

03-07-2011, 02:06 PM

ukcatfan

03-07-2011, 02:44 PM

Zackie, great breakdown! I agree... UK, gotta disagree, but I understand what you are trying to say. Most users aren't going to buy high end lenses for their vacations and what not. But I see great lenses on my Kx everyday!!! Lol, I have no desire to be professional or selling. I am just overjoyed when I take an in focus photo! I am sure that there are many others out there with great glass on entry level DSLR's, I see them all the time on the other forums.

Agree on Justin's breakdown. He is a man of words! (and must be a fast typist as well:thumbsup2)

I am mainly talking about nicer lenses on Canon and Nikon bodies. I totally agree that there are going to be people with nice lenses on entry level bodies, but I think it is more in the off brands than C&N. I often try to see what body is attached to a white lens when I am close enough to see. I think I have seen about two Rebels on them, many xxD class, and a good handful of even nicer bodies over about five years of looking (plus a few film bodies!). I do base most of my observations on Disney and school events (including sports), so there are situations I do not observe where there might be more. I feel the demographic I observe is very comparable to the people that frequent this website though. BTW, I also see similar results on Nikon bodies, but the really nice lenses are harder to spot since they are not some different color.

zackiedawg

03-07-2011, 02:53 PM

Yeah...I'm a fast typist, at least for a guy with no official keyboard training...just 18 years of financial work hovering in front of a keyboard and screen! ;)

I'd tend to say I see the most high-end lenses on advanced-entry or higher bodies - a heavy majority of entry-level cameras I see are kit-lens-only. That is, unless I am at a photographer's location, such as when I go birding - there, the high-end lenses far outnumber the kit lenses, even on entry-level cameras, and mid-level or full frame cameras often outnumber entry level. At places like Disney, most DSLRs I see are entry-level Canon or Nikon with kit lenses.

Beware on the big white lenses...I get regularly asked what Canon body I'm shooting with because I'm seen in the distance approaching with a big white metal lens...pros who know gear very well might recognize the different grip design or focus ring width...but many don't know even up close, and just assume if it's white, metal, and big, it must be a Canon. They end up looking confused when i tell them it's a Sony body - I've actually had a few people follow up by asking if the Sony bodies are all compatible with Canon lenses - and have to further explain to them that Minolta's high-end lenses were also white - in fact, Minolta's AF lenses were white before Canon's were! This is not a once-in-a-blue-moon encounter - I get this 2 or 3 times a week when I'm out shooting in heavily trafficked birding spots.

Code

03-07-2011, 03:06 PM

Justin, very well said.

dalstitch45

03-07-2011, 07:22 PM

I could be wrong, but I am guessing based on the things I bolded above that this person is not interested in a over $2k lens at this point.

Exactly right, ukcatfan. I am just going to be a beginner in the DSLR market. I don't think I am ready for the $2k category yet, but you guys have given me some really good information to go with.

I am going to a couple of local camera shops tomorrow to try out a few of the cameras suggested here, the Pentax being one of them. Thanks again everyone.

KAT4DISNEY

03-07-2011, 09:46 PM

Beware on the big white lenses.......They end up looking confused when i tell them it's a Sony body......

lol - I get that too almost everytime I take out a white lens. The other person is usually quite excited about a Canon shooter. Then I say Sony and the confusion is great. :rotfl: Then I get asked how I can use a Canon lens on the Sony.

BTW - I also was marveling once again at your typing! :)

Groucho

03-07-2011, 10:02 PM

When I was shopping around Canon and Nikon were the only real option for my type of shooting. Yes there are third party lenses, but all the sports shooters I talked to mentioned focus is noticeably inferior to those nice Nikon and Canon lenses.

Decide what lenses are on your list... Every single sports shooter I know(bout a hundred) owns a 70-200mm 2.8
The problem with this reasoning is that a 70-200mm is not the same lens on a crop-sensor cameras as a FF camera.

"Pro" sports shooting are likely to be shooting with a full-frame camera. That means that they're not getting the same reach that you would with that lens on an APS camera. The equivalent would be more like, oh... I dunno... maybe the superb Pentax 50-135mm F2.8 lens, which is half the weight of the Canon 70-200mm F2.8, much smaller, and I would put the Pentax's IQ up against the Canon's any day of the week. The Canon's focus system (the lens itself) will focus faster and you can get a shallow DoF when used on FF, but if you're purely talking "reach", you'll actually get more reach with 135mm on a 1.5x crop camera than 200mm on a full-frame. (By a trivial amount, but you will.) The focus speed issue is falling back, too - the new Pentax 18-135mm F3.5-F5.6 lens uses a different focus motor than previous Pentax lenses and by all accounts, is extremely fast. Some Sigmas also use the faster type of in-lens motor - such as their 50-150mm F2.8 lens, which is another great option for a good fast zoom for crop-sensor cameras. It was just recently discontinued and a new version with stabilization is on its way for all camera mounts. Tamron's and Sigma's 70-200mm also have quite nice image quality if you do insist on 70-200mm on a crop-sensor. There are plenty of fast-focusing screw-drive focus lenses out there, too.

If you want the FF equivalent of a 70-200mm F2.8 on a crop-sensor, you'd need a 105-300mm F4 lens. I don't think many sports shooters are using that kind of a lens.

Once you get into the other 'professional' class of photographer, the need to stick with Canon or Nikon pretty much fades to a choice or desire, rather than a necessity. They have advantages, unquestionably - they have more bodies to choose from, more lenses currently available to choose from, and easier access to rental lenses or sharing/borrowing lenses from others, since more people are shooting with those two brands. They make fine cameras that are very capable. However, the other brands have their advantages too, and a professional who isn't in the top tiers might find the advantages of Pentax or Sony suit their needs well, even better than Canon or Nikon.
Funnily enough, I was amused to see that the company (Action Sports International) that was shooting the photos for the Mickey Marathon kid's races - which is the same company that shoots the main marathon and offers to sell you photos of yourself - was using an Olympus E-3 for some of the event photography. I would imagine that they had a few different cameras and they weren't all Olympuses, but obviously they found value in the unique Olympus offering of 2x crop sensor and, by all accounts, extremely good lenses, for their sports shooting.

Only once someone moves to the pro leagues where your living is fully dependent on your photography, where professional support is vital to keeping your job or putting food on the table, or where your photographic needs become so specialized that only one brand even makes the specific lens or camera function that you need, does one need to start crossing other brands off their list, and stick with the big two.
Coincidentally, I just read something the other day from a pro shooter who was commenting on how he had found Pentax pro support much more responsive than Nikon's, due to them being a smaller company and giving more personal care. This was, I believe, for the medium format line. (It's worth noting again that if you want to go really professional studio photography, a medium-format DSLR like the Pentax 645D is going to offer some distinct advantages to anything from C/N/S/O! :love: )

Anewman

03-08-2011, 11:41 AM

The problem with this reasoning is that a 70-200mm is not the same lens on a crop-sensor cameras as a FF camera.

"Pro" sports shooting are likely to be shooting with a full-frame camera. That means that they're not getting the same reach that you would with that lens on an APS camera. The equivalent would be more like, oh... I dunno... maybe the superb Pentax 50-135mm F2.8 lens, which is half the weight of the Canon 70-200mm F2.8, much smaller, and I would put the Pentax's IQ up against the Canon's any day of the week. The Canon's focus system (the lens itself) will focus faster and you can get a shallow DoF when used on FF, but if you're purely talking "reach", you'll actually get more reach with 135mm on a 1.5x crop camera than 200mm on a full-frame. (By a trivial amount, but you will.) The focus speed issue is falling back, too - the new Pentax 18-135mm F3.5-F5.6 lens uses a different focus motor than previous Pentax lenses and by all accounts, is extremely fast. Some Sigmas also use the faster type of in-lens motor - such as their 50-150mm F2.8 lens, which is another great option for a good fast zoom for crop-sensor cameras. It was just recently discontinued and a new version with stabilization is on its way for all camera mounts. Tamron's and Sigma's 70-200mm also have quite nice image quality if you do insist on 70-200mm on a crop-sensor. There are plenty of fast-focusing screw-drive focus lenses out there, too.

If you want the FF equivalent of a 70-200mm F2.8 on a crop-sensor, you'd need a 105-300mm F4 lens. I don't think many sports shooters are using that kind of a lens.

kinda over thinking it IMO.

If you were going to be on the sideline for any high school football game and you would really rather have the Pentax 50-135mm... Congrats I am not knocking it.

I gave my take and I would choose the Canon or Nikon 70-200mm any day, regardless of what the FF equiv is.

boBQuincy

03-09-2011, 07:18 AM

The problem with this reasoning is that a 70-200mm is not the same lens on a crop-sensor cameras as a FF camera.

I was going to ignore this because a lot of photographers just don't like to hear the facts but since it is such a common misunderstanding I decided to give it another go.

*A 70-200 is the same lens on a crop sensor camera as it is on a full frame!*

The angle of view changes but the magnification (or "reach") does not. Take a photo with the 70-200 on a crop camera and a full frame camera (with the same pixels per inch on the sensor), crop about 60% of the FF image, and the images will be the same. (Depth of field may differ slightly but magnification will be identical).

Crop cameras do not magically extend the range of a lens as long as the cameras are built with the same lens-to-sensor distance (as almost all dSLRs are in order to use the full line of lenses). I know it is not a popular fact but it is a fact.

Daisy14'sDH

03-09-2011, 08:47 AM

I was going to ignore this because a lot of photographers just don't like to hear the facts but since it is such a common misunderstanding I decided to give it another go.

*A 70-200 is the same lens on a crop sensor camera as it is on a full frame!*

The angle of view changes but the magnification (or "reach") does not. Take a photo with the 70-200 on a crop camera and a full frame camera (with the same pixels per inch on the sensor), crop about 60% of the FF image, and the images will be the same. (Depth of field may differ slightly but magnification will be identical).

Crop cameras do not magically extend the range of a lens as long as the cameras are built with the same lens-to-sensor distance (as almost all dSLRs are in order to use the full line of lenses). I know it is not a popular fact but it is a fact.

Thats what Groucho said... so the FF user has the option of an extra 50% angle over the crop sensor. I'm pretty sure you are agreeing....

cpbjgc

03-09-2011, 09:15 AM

Thats what Groucho said... so the FF user has the option of an extra 50% angle over the crop sensor. I'm pretty sure you are agreeing....

I think Bob was trying to point out that when we use "reach" to say that the crop sensor Ymm is the same a Xmm on a full frame, it is just field of view. Using a crop sensor does gives you the same magnification (optical zoom) as a full frame, just a smaller part of the image than the full frame captures. So it you look at a picture from a 200mm on a 1.5 crop and compare it to a 300mm on a full frame, the field of view will be the same, but the image quality/detail of the 300mm should be better for an equivalent print size because of the magnification of the 300mm lens.

Or I could be way off base, in which case, just ignore me. :)

Groucho

03-09-2011, 05:57 PM

I think Bob was trying to point out that when we use "reach" to say that the crop sensor Ymm is the same a Xmm on a full frame, it is just field of view. Using a crop sensor does gives you the same magnification (optical zoom) as a full frame, just a smaller part of the image than the full frame captures. So it you look at a picture from a 200mm on a 1.5 crop and compare it to a 300mm on a full frame, the field of view will be the same, but the image quality/detail of the 300mm should be better for an equivalent print size because of the magnification of the 300mm lens.

Or I could be way off base, in which case, just ignore me. :)
Well, kind of sort of. :) Image quality will vary due to the lens quality more than anything else, but other than that, I'd agree with everything you said.

Obviously, Bob's right, the lens itself is the same no matter what you mount it in front of, whether it's film or any number of digital sensor sizes. However, what you'll get out of the lens will vary. (Even in the C/N world - Canon's 1.6x crop means that you'll get a different range on their crop-sensors vs Nikon's 1.5x.)

The biggest change is the field of view. Mount it on a crop-sensor, and you have a narrower field of view - ie, set the lens to 70mm at the wide end on a crop-sensor and you'll get the same field of view as you would if you mounted the lens on a FF and set it to 105mm. (112mm for you Canon shooters.) You cannot get as wide of a field of view on the crop-sensor, no matter what you do. (This is one of the reasons I've been a big proponent of 50-135mm/50-150mm lenses for crop-sensor cameras!) Also, the field of view may be the same but there may be other issues - you may see more barrel distortion or other anomalies that vary with focal length on zoom lenses. By and large though, you'll get pretty close to the same photo (unless you're using a fisheye!) You may lose some sharpness because you're essentially magnifying the image, but then again, you are cropping off the edges, which are usually the weakest parts of the image, especially at large apertures.

On FF, you can crop your photo to get the same field of view as a crop camera, but at a loss of resolution of course.

Depth of field changes since you need a higher focal length to get the same field of view.

This is not a controversial topic; for decades, medium-format lenses have been affected exactly the same way when adapted to be used on a 35mm camera.

At the end of the day, the same lens will produce different photos when mounted on a crop-sensor vs FF. Surely we can agree on that. :) And back to the original topic, I don't agree with the blanket notion that all sports photographers (who will primarily use FF cameras) use a 70-200mm therefore you need to have a 70-200mm on your crop-sensor to take such photos.

Anewman

03-09-2011, 09:05 PM

I don't agree with the blanket notion that all sports photographers (who will primarily use FF cameras) use a 70-200mm therefore you need to have a 70-200mm on your crop-sensor to take such photos.

No need to agree, but no blanket notion was issued. If someone is going to focus on a specific type of photography, I recommend they go towards the system that is best suited(IMO)...regardless of brand loyalty. And it never means that it is the ONLY option.

I never said that one NEEDS these lenses to shoot sports, one can take sports photos with a kit lens if they so choose. We both know what would be the better lens when it comes to shooting sports in general.

I don't agree with the blanket notion that all sports photographers (who will primarily use FF cameras) use a 70-200mm therefore you need to have a 70-200mm on your crop-sensor to take such photos.

Where do you get this?...

Please tell me which FF camera body it is that you THINK sports shooters primarily use, because the pro camera bodies that I see as being aimed towards sports shooters are NOT FF.

Daisy14'sDH

03-09-2011, 09:52 PM

I'm no expert so shoot me down at will, but I would kinda figure that a Proffessional SPorts photographer, or even an extreme amatuer enthusiast sports photographer would go for a FF if they were C/N users... anyway this is a moot point over a thread that just simply stated they were excited to buy a DSLR! C'mon everyone, its just a camera...

cpbjgc

03-09-2011, 11:05 PM

I'm no expert so shoot me down at will, but I would kinda figure that a Proffessional SPorts photographer, or even an extreme amatuer enthusiast sports photographer would go for a FF if they were C/N users... anyway this is a moot point over a thread that just simply stated they were excited to buy a DSLR! C'mon everyone, its just a camera...

Hey! Are you trying to steer this back on topic?

Good luck! :dance3:

Anewman

03-09-2011, 11:47 PM

I'm no expert so shoot me down at will, but I would kinda figure that a Proffessional SPorts photographer, or even an extreme amatuer enthusiast sports photographer would go for a FF if they were C/N users...

Not shooting you down, just clarifying.

Canon has two pro bodies.

The Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III is full frame, not exactly aimed at sports but is obviously capable. 21mp images @ 5fps

The Canon EOS-1D Mark IV is not full frame but does shoot 16mp images @ 10fps- IMO it is the obvious choice for the TOP pro sports shooters, but some might prefer the slower FF body.

With Canon non-pro bodies, the crop bodies still deliver substantial speed advantages vs FF bodies.

With Nikon it differs as the their top pro camera is FF, but shoots faster when in DX(crop) mode.

IMO the reach of crop bodies trumps the benefits provided by full frame bodies when it comes to sports, and the speed provided by crop bodies seals the deal again IMO.

Groucho

03-10-2011, 10:33 AM

Sigh.

Whatever. I don't watch football. I don't even know how it's played. Quite frankly, I could not possibly care any less about what someone who shoots football games uses. I will happily admit that I'm sure that you know much more about what is likely to be found at a football game. I prefer my sports to have someone sitting behind a steering wheel, preferably driving flat-out down a forest road. :teeth:

HOWEVER, I also admit pay more attention to the Nikon world than the Canon world. A Nikon sports shooters buying today would most likely buy the full-frame D3s, rather than their top crop camera, the D300s. (The extra reach of the crop sensor being pretty much the only advantage of the D300s, while there's some serious disadvantages.) You'll get 9fps in the Nikon vs 10 in the Canon, without in-camera cropping (which gives you 11 on the Nikon.) Canon is the only one to offer the "odd duck" 1.3x crop APS-H like used in the Mk4 - not full frame, but not their usual 1.6x crop either. Either way, it seems to me that the "hardcore" sports shooters are probably not using 1.5/1.6x crop cameras.

My original point is that a 70-200mm is going to offer different usefulness to different shooters depending on their body. On the Mk4, you will get you a 35mm equivalent of 91-260mm, with probably around F3.5 or so for DoF, versus 105mm-300mm and about F4 for DoF on a 1.5x crop or 112-320mm on Canon's 1.6 crop.

Let's not forget that a "proper" stabilized OEM 70-200mm for C/N is around $2,300. Drop stabilization and Canon will sell you one for $1,400. How is this remotely relevant given the OP's given budget? Especially when you're also talking about using it with a $5,200 camera. That would mean a total outlay of ten times the budget, and that still only gives a single lens. (Speaking of getting back on topic.) If budget were no object, we could also make an argument for Olympus' 35-100mm F2.0, for about $2,500. Or Sony's $1,800 70-200mm F2.8. Or a used Pentax 80-200mm F2.8 for around a grand. Or a new Pentax 60-250mm F4.

But, that is not the situation. Let's get back on topic. The given budget is around $700-800, maybe a little more depending on lenses. Any long zoom F2.8 is likely to be out, since you're talking probably at least $800 for your cheapest third-party option. A entry-level DSLR is the best choice as the OP hasn't used a DSLR before. In this situation, a basic two-lens "kit" is almost certainly going to be the best fit, with a long zoom starting around 50-55mm and ending 200-300mm.

Based on the options available in that price range, the Pentax K-r 2-lens kit with the 55-300mm is going to, factually, give the fastest burst rate, best high ISO performance, and, subjectively, quite possibly the best-quality lenses and autofocus as good or better than others in its class. Along with the Sony and Olympus, it will also offer you stabilization with those lenses and with all other lenses that you buy. I'm sure the OP would love to hear some alternative suggestions, too, but let's stay in the budget we've been given. OK. Are we back on track? Everyone friends? Good. :thumbsup2

zackiedawg

03-10-2011, 10:41 AM

Along with the excellent KR option, I'd also throw at the OP for consideration in the $700-800 body range, the Sony A55 (just a bit less capable at the highest ISOs, a faster 10fps burst capability, same in-body stabilization, fast AF, good A-mount lens selections, etc) and A580 (top high ISO performance, 5fps with tracking or 7fps without, same in-body stabilization, fast AF, good A-mount lens selection, OVF with best live view system). Certainly they're worth looking at and considering alongside all the other options mentioned. Better to look at more models and brands than fewer!

Anewman

03-10-2011, 10:46 AM

But, that is not the situation. Let's get back on topic. The given budget is around $700-800, maybe a little more depending on lenses. Any long zoom F2.8 is likely to be out, since you're talking probably at least $800 for your cheapest third-party option. A entry-level DSLR is the best choice as the OP hasn't used a DSLR before. In this situation, a basic two-lens "kit" is almost certainly going to be the best fit, with a long zoom starting around 50-55mm and ending 200-300mm.

Based on the options available in that price range, the Pentax K-r 2-lens kit with the 55-300mm is going to, factually, give the fastest burst rate, best high ISO performance, and, subjectively, quite possibly the best-quality lenses and autofocus as good or better than others in its class. Along with the Sony and Olympus, it will also offer you stabilization with those lenses and with all other lenses that you buy. I'm sure the OP would love to hear some alternative suggestions, too, but let's stay in the budget we've been given. OK. Are we back on track? Everyone friends? Good. :thumbsup2

Glad we are back on topic after your 4 paragraph rebuttal. lol

Yes the Pentax, is a good option within the OPs stated budget. But there are other options that will meet the OPs budget constraints today, and allow BETTER(IMO) sports shooting options at a later point in time.

Anewman

03-10-2011, 10:50 AM

Groucho

03-10-2011, 10:54 AM

zackiedawg - good points; the A55 may be a compelling choice for the PnS shooter who places high importance on liveview shooting. The Micro4/3rds cameras could also fall into this category. Both also have an audible noise advantage, since there's no mirror moving back and forth making noise.

For more occasional liveview use, it's worth noting that the latest crop of cameras have dramatically faster liveview focusing than older models - I know the K-5 and K-r are this way, and I understand that the D7000 is also supposed to be very fast; I'm not sure about the A580?

Anewman - we'll agree to disagree on this one. ;) I would rather have a better built, faster, more capable camera today than worry about potential future options which would involve spending thousands of dollars and probably replacing both the current lens and body bought at this point. :teeth: Besides, switching systems is not that huge of a deal; people do it all the time.

zackiedawg

03-10-2011, 11:06 AM

Anewman

03-10-2011, 11:06 AM

Anewman - we'll agree to disagree on this one. ;) I would rather have a better built, faster, more capable camera today than worry about potential future options which would involve spending thousands of dollars and probably replacing both the current lens and body bought at this point. :teeth: Besides, switching systems is not that huge of a deal; people do it all the time.

Seems like old times...

I also prefer the BETTER BUILT, FASTER, MORE CAPABLE camera body today... and I want it to have the best possible lens choices down the road for my syle of shooting.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_211660_-1

I still dont see why one would need to replace the body when one adds a nice lens.

Groucho

03-10-2011, 11:37 AM

The A580 is still significantly faster across the board in live view than other DSLRs, mostly due to Sony's use of twin live view modes. Definitely live view has been sped up with newer DSLRs, due to eliminating the lengthy mirror flip up-down dance, but they still have limitations in two regards - they can't use phase-detect AF without doing the mirror dance, so with mirror down they have to use slower contrast detect and without subject tracking/continuous AF, and they can't shoot burst. With the Sony A5xx series DSLRs, you can maintain 4fps in live view, and you continue to use phase-detect AF with continuous and tracking with no shutter lag or delay at all (not even just a little bit - the A5xx cameras function IDENTICALLY fast in OVF or live view mode - that's still something no other DSLRs can do). While the D7000, KR, et al are faster than previous DSLR efforts, they are still significantly behind the speed and functionality of the Sony A580 version of live view. While every manufacturer has their advantages and disadvantages, this is definitely one of Sony's clear advantages for years now...and so far, still is.
You'll understand if I have a hard time keeping up with Sony's dizzying array of DSLRs. :)

I would suspect that the differences in speed between the SLT and old-fashioned flip-up mirror systems will narrow. Before the K-5/K-r/D7000, I wouldn't have believed that they'd get LV focusing so quickly - it's a big jump forward. There's no reason why this won't continue to speed up as the processors get faster, algorithms improve, etc. No question though, as it stands today, the Sonys clearly win in the LV world. This also gives you pretty solid autofocus in video, which no one else really has.

The flip-out/swivel LCD is also a good feature to have on a camera that will see a lot of LV use.

I heard recently - not sure if it's true - that Sony has said that they'll be moving to SLT mirrors for all future DSLRs. Time will tell if the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages of losing light as it goes through the mirror, or using an EVF like on the A580. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if EVFs become preferred to optical viewfinders some day...) Then there's the whole issue of, do DSLR users really want to use LV most of the time? Obviously Sony does and is aggressively courting the entry- and mid- market, while the A850/A900 and especially the A700 continue to soldier on after all this time.

Seems like old times...

I also prefer the BETTER BUILT, FASTER, MORE CAPABLE camera body today... and I want it to have the best possible lens choices down the road for my syle of shooting.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_211660_-1

I still dont see why one would need to replace the body when one adds a nice lens.
If you're going to talk last-generation used cameras and lenses, well, that muddies the waters that much more. Again - you're specifically saying to buy a Canon, so that you can, in the future, buy a $2,300 lens. Or $1,400 if you don't want stabilization. That's some future planning! Meanwhile, I would state that the Pentax 50-135mm is a unique, very useful lens that fills a niche that can not be filled by any other manufacturer. (Fast, reasonably priced, sealed, top-notch IQ, in the long-zoom focal length that was most popular for decades on 35mm.) If you want future high-dollar lens options, the Olympus system, with its F2.0 zooms, should maybe be on the list, too. Probably m4/3rds though; despite their denials, I suspect that "proper" Olympus DSLRs are essentially dead. Still, 4/3rds definitely has some aspirational lenses that are not available anywhere else.

Anewman

03-10-2011, 11:58 AM

If you're going to talk last-generation used cameras and lenses, well, that muddies the waters that much more. Again -

Muddies the water??? I dont agree

Is the Pentax better built?
Is the Pentax faster?
Is the Pentax more capable?

That was all your criteria not mine.:confused3

Again - you're specifically saying to buy a Canon, so that you can, in the future, buy a $2,300 lens. Or $1,400 if you don't want stabilization. That's some future planning!

No that is not what I am "specifically" saying, I am saying that when one is buying into a system... one is wise to CONSIDER the growth options while at the same time getting a very good sports shooting camera today.

Meanwhile, I would state that the Pentax 50-135mm is a unique, very useful lens that fills a niche that can not be filled by any other manufacturer. (Fast, reasonably priced, sealed, top-notch IQ, in the long-zoom focal length that was most popular for decades on 35mm.)

I agree great lens... nowhere near my top choices for sports shooting. Maybe decent for say basketball if you are sitting in the baseline areas.

But again a great $900 lens.

If you want future high-dollar lens options, the Olympus system, with its F2.0 zooms, should maybe be on the list, too. Probably m4/3rds though; despite their denials, I suspect that "proper" Olympus DSLRs are essentially dead. Still, 4/3rds definitely has some aspirational lenses that are not available anywhere else.

I agree for some applications Oly offers great options, buy IMO sports is not one of those applications. And those lenses are really high dollar even compared to the canon numbers you have thrown out.

Groucho

03-10-2011, 12:38 PM

Muddies the water??? I dont agree

Is the Pentax better built?
Is the Pentax faster?
Is the Pentax more capable?

That was all your criteria not mine.:confused3
We have been focusing on current models. If we are going to talk about old last-gens, you should be comparing the K-7, not the K-r, to the 50D - and the K-7 is most definitely better built and tightly sealed, though slightly slower (5.2fps vs 6.3), and capability is a gray area - the K-7 excels in some areas, the 50D in others.

No that is not what I am "specifically" saying, I am saying that when one is buying into a system... one is wise to CONSIDER the growth options while at the same time getting a very good sports shooting camera today.

But which one would you recommend? Are you suggesting that the OP buy a used, last-gen, refurbished camera rather than a new one? There may be reasons for doing so but your link to the 50D was the first mention of going used. (And there may be good reasons to consider used, I am not debating that!) That link just give you a single lens, though, which does not go very wide. You've also been saying that you need more reach than 135mm. So what long lens?

I agree for some applications Oly offers great options, buy IMO sports is not one of those applications. And those lenses are really high dollar even compared to the canon numbers you have thrown out.
Well, like I said (in another thread?), apparently the E-3 is good enough for the pros shooting the Disney marathon. :) The 35-100mm F2 is very expensive but not much more so than the 70-200mm w/IS, and is consistently raved about. IMHO no lens on the planet is worth anywhere near that kind of money, but that's just me. :)

Pea-n-Me

03-10-2011, 01:22 PM

Well, like I said (in another thread?), apparently the E-3 is good enough for the pros shooting the Disney marathon.
Not to mention the US Open (http://www.mcnamarareport.com/olympus-e-3-dslr-top-seed-at-the-us-open/)

The bottom line? The E-3 is a great bargain and a great performer, with sought after features such as built-in image stabilization, live view, a super-fast AF, ultrasonic dust removal, a pro body with weather seals, and excellent image quality at most ISO settings. It also has a unique rotating LCD monitor. (By the way, since it utilizes a 10.1MP sensor with a 4:3 aspect ratio, it’s capable of delivering resolution equivalent to Nikon and Canon DSLRs sporting 12.3MP, 2:3 ratio APS-C format sensors.)

and NASA for shooting Earth from the Space Shuttle Discovery
(http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_PressDetails.asp?pressNo=665)

This thread is a good example of how and why it's important to do your own research and to go with the camera and brand that suits YOU best.

As has been said many times before - they're all good. :)

Anewman

03-10-2011, 01:52 PM

We have been focusing on current models. If we are going to talk about old last-gens, you should be comparing the K-7, not the K-r, to the 50D - and the K-7 is most definitely better built and tightly sealed, though slightly slower (5.2fps vs 6.3), and capability is a gray area - the K-7 excels in some areas, the 50D in others.

I have used the K-7 AWESOME, but out of OPs stated budget and that is not including any lens.

You are correct the lens that comes with the factory refurbished 50D is not ideal, but IMO better than no lens at all and does have focal range similar to the Pentax lens you recommended.

As for the OLY E-3, I am sure some love it. What is it going for today?

I am not saying the 50D is the only option, but IMO it is surely a viable option.

Daisy14'sDH

03-10-2011, 09:12 PM

*cough*cough*Pentax*cough*cough

zackiedawg

03-10-2011, 11:38 PM

You'll understand if I have a hard time keeping up with Sony's dizzying array of DSLRs. :)
I would suspect that the differences in speed between the SLT and old-fashioned flip-up mirror systems will narrow.

It already has narrowed - the SLTs still have the edge overall, with Sony's DSLRs using twin-sensors coming in a tight second...then still a bit of a gap to 3rd but getting better each time.

I heard recently - not sure if it's true - that Sony has said that they'll be moving to SLT mirrors for all future DSLRs. Time will tell if the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages of losing light as it goes through the mirror, or using an EVF like on the A580.

That's a rumor - time will tell if true. And I don't know any better than you if it'll be viable, even for me. I'm an avowed OVF shooter, so EVFs as they stand today cannot replace OVFs for my personal shooting. Whether Sony makes this move, and whether they can overcome EVF shortcomings to make it an honest-to-goodness full replacement for OVFs in all types of shooting - noone yet knows. I'll judge when it happens!

BTW - more of Sony's dizzying array confusion, apparently...the A580 is actually an OPTICAL viewfinder camera, not EVF. It's the newest of Sony's traditional DSLRs, with their twin sensor live view capability, which is how they figured out how to get full-speed, phase-detect live view with a traditional mirror-and-optical-finder camera. Personally, I still prefer the A580 over the A33/55 'SLT' cameras for my needs, but the SLTs may be great choices for some others to consider, including the original poster.

Then there's the whole issue of, do DSLR users really want to use LV most of the time? Obviously Sony does and is aggressively courting the entry- and mid- market, while the A850/A900 and especially the A700 continue to soldier on after all this time.

Well, I certainly don't - thank god for Sony's A5xx series cameras - which carry on with optical finders while still providing the excellent fast live view. Though I love the quick live view, and do make use of it, and love the tilt LCD, optical viewfinder shooting still represents 90% or more of my shooting. Live view doesn't cut it for the majority of my photography.