Canon vs Nikon vs Sony vs ...

[disneyboy2003]

I think I'm having a hard time deciphering what is most important for what I want to capture.

ISO 1600 vs. 3200 (Canon model in question only goes to 1600)
FPS
Built in image stabilization vs. IS lenses

First of all, take a field trip down to your local Best Buy and/or your local camera store and hold each of the cameras yourself. That way, you can easily eliminate any camera that doesn't "feel right", "look right", or have any obvious feature deficits.

Image stabilization (IS) is a HUGE topic. Canon & Nikon have image stabilization built into their lenses. This makes their lenses more expensive. However, you can actually see the effects of IS when you look through the viewfinder (ie. the image in the viewfinder is stabilized and not shaky).

Sony, Pentax, etc. have image stabilization built into the camera bodies. This means you get image stabilization for all your photos, regardless of which lens you use. This essentially makes all your lenses have image stabilization. However, you won't see the effects of IS in your viewfinder (ie. the image in the viewfinder will still be shaky, so you're essentially crossing your fingers hoping that the final image captured by your camera is actually stabilized).

Apparently, studies have shown that both methods of image stabilization work about equally well.


As for your initial question about Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc., you really can't go wrong with any of the entry-level DSLRs, regardless of brand.

The differences come later on if/when you decide on doing more advanced stuff. There are subtle differences in the selection of very-high-priced lenses. For the very advanced photographer, there are differences in how you wirelessly control external flashes. However, like I said, for entry-level DSLRs, you can get the job done with any brand's DSLR.

Also, take a look at rtphokie's recent post about the "Most popular cameras on Disboards" (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2360340). Whether these results are biased or not, you can see that Canon & Nikon overwhelmingly dominate the DSLR market. The advantage of this is that you'll see TONS of resources, books, message boards, camera accessories, third-party stuff that are dedicated specifically to Canon & Nikon photography on the Internet, bookstores, camera stores, etc. If you ever have a question about lenses, you'll have tons of people who can give advice on Canon & Nikon lenses / accessories...not just on Disboards, but on other photography message boards, as well. If you ever read photography magazines, they are heavily biased toward Canon & Nikon photographers (magazines do mention Sony, Pentax, Olympus, etc lenses & cameras, but I typically see them mentioned in camera / lens reviews).

Oh, and if you ever decide to resell any lenses, you find TONS of takers for Canon & Nikon lenses, because of the popularity of Canon / Nikon DSLRs. I believe the resale values of high-end Canon / Nikon lenses are pretty high, so you can recover much of the money you spend.

We do have resident Sony & Pentax experts on this message board, so you'll get great advice if/when you have questions about a Sony or Pentax DSLR camera.

I can only speak about Canon and my experience with having a Canon camera. Others will have better advice about other DSLR brands & their advantages.

However, your very first step should be visiting a camera store / Best Buy to hold these cameras yourself to find one with the best "fit". Hope that helps.

(actually, I'm not sure I helped out with your initial "information overload". Sorry.)

 

[Pea-n-Me]

take a look at rtphokie's recent post about the "Most popular cameras on Disboards"

Funny, I didn't see "etc" anywhere.

 

[ukcatfan]

don't let the greater "ISO" numbers influenced your decisions! the models that go past 1600 reach that through the camera's software, you can do the same in post processing. Your best option may be to save a little more money (or use Christmas $!) and buy a model like the Canon T1i (500D), Nikon 5000D, Pentax K-x, etc. - video and other features really make the newer models more attractive.

I just want to make one thing clear on this. Do you mean the difference between those two models? If so, then I agree completely. If you mean not to worry about it all around, then I cannot agree. The ISO performance on the higher end of the entry level have enough better performance to deserve the extra cost. The ISO 6400 on my K-x rivals the 1600 of my K100D. Those two stops are going to make a huge difference on rides like HM and POTC

 

[handicap18]

You mentioned Hockey. What your going to need to consider is the lens more so than the camera body. Hockey rinks are not really lit very well and the action is fast. Your going to need a fast lens.

A few months back I rented the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 to take pictures at a Boston Bruins Almuni charity game. There would have been no way I would have gotten decent shots with just my regular 70-300mm lens. It would not have been fast enough. With the 70-200mm f/2.8 I shot wide open at f/2.8 with ISO 1600 and was getting shutter speeds between 1/200 and 1/320. This was just fast enough to stop the action. I did up the ISO to 2000 and got faster shutter speeds.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 is pretty much a perfect lens for shooting hockey in small rinks. But it is espensive. Very expensive. You can get older versions that don't have VR/IS for less money. There is also a smaller Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 that less than $1000 that has a decent focal length for hockey.

Also frames per second could be a factor for you. Having a fast FPS could help with getting more action shots and is something to consider.

In the end the camera body is only part of the package you'll need. Look at each companies lens line up and also consider the 3rd party companies (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) and what they have that fit each camera company.

 

[ukcatfan]

You mentioned Hockey. What your going to need to consider is the lens more so than the camera body. Hockey rinks are not really lit very well and the action is fast. Your going to need a fast lens.

A few months back I rented the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 to take pictures at a Boston Bruins Almuni charity game. There would have been no way I would have gotten decent shots with just my regular 70-300mm lens. It would not have been fast enough. With the 70-200mm f/2.8 I shot wide open at f/2.8 with ISO 1600 and was getting shutter speeds between 1/200 and 1/320. This was just fast enough to stop the action. I did up the ISO to 2000 and got faster shutter speeds.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 is pretty much a perfect lens for shooting hockey in small rinks. But it is espensive. Very expensive. You can get older versions that don't have VR/IS for less money. There is also a smaller Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 that less than $1000 that has a decent focal length for hockey.

While better glass is always going to be the best solution, some of these new cameras (K-x, T1i, etc) that can do good ISO 6400+ can get the same exposure at f/5.6. The better glass is going to look better due to less noise and the fact that it is just better glass, but the inexpensive zooms can now actually get those shots.

 

[boBQuincy]

don't let the greater "ISO" numbers influenced your decisions! the models that go past 1600 reach that through the camera's software, you can do the same in post processing.

This is how some cameras get higher ISO but not all. Some models boost ISO in hardware amplification instead of software, hardware is a better way to do it (but more $$$). The difficult part is finding what method a camera uses but the ones that have very clean high ISO are probably using hardware.

 

[jfinke]

This is how some cameras get higher ISO but not all. Some models boost ISO in hardware amplification instead of software, hardware is a better way to do it (but more $$$). The difficult part is finding what method a camera uses but the ones that have very clean high ISO are probably using hardware.

I believe on the Canons, you have to "unlock" the higher software ISO. And it is pretty much the equivalent of bumping up your exposure by 1 stop in your PP software. I could be wrong though.

 

[Groucho]

Image stabilization (IS) is a HUGE topic. Canon & Nikon have image stabilization built into their lenses. This makes their lenses more expensive. However, you can actually see the effects of IS when you look through the viewfinder (ie. the image in the viewfinder is stabilized and not shaky).

Sony, Pentax, etc. have image stabilization built into the camera bodies. This means you get image stabilization for all your photos, regardless of which lens you use. This essentially makes all your lenses have image stabilization. However, you won't see the effects of IS in your viewfinder (ie. the image in the viewfinder will still be shaky, so you're essentially crossing your fingers hoping that the final image captured by your camera is actually stabilized).

A couple points... C&N have IS in some of their lenses. Most don't - especially primes. I haven't counted lately, but last time I checked, each had only one, maybe two prime lenses with IS. For those of us who love primes, this is a big deal! This is also good for third-party lenses and older lenses, which are unlikely to have IS built in. Try using a Sigma 30mm F1.4 with IS on a C or N body.

Oh, and if you ever decide to resell any lenses, you find TONS of takers for Canon & Nikon lenses, because of the popularity of Canon / Nikon DSLRs. I believe the resale values of high-end Canon / Nikon lenses are pretty high, so you can recover much of the money you spend.

Good lenses all have good resale values. Especially true if the lenses aren't made any more. Pentax's 85mm F1.4, 24-70mm F2.8, and 80-200mm F2.8 are just a few off the top of my head that consistently sell well into the four figures for used models (none are currently made.) Conversely, entry-level lenses tend to have so-so resale values, no matter the brand.

Really, there should be no problem finding willing buyers for any high-end lens for any body, especially with eBay and various manufacturer-specific forums with busy buy/sell sections.

One other thing to remember - when you choose a DSLR, you are not locked into that system for life. If you are a DSLR newbie and later on decide to get more serious - guess what, chances are that you will be replacing all your hardware when buying higher-end bodies and lenses. It is not difficult to switch brands if you find yourself wanting to go in another direction in the future. No brand offers all things to all people and people switch brands all the time - Sony to Olympus, Olympus to Nikon, Nikon to Canon, Canon to Pentax... it's not uncommon and it's not difficult. Some people even regularly run multiple systems. Entry-level gear tends to not hold its value and if you have bought a higher-end lens, chances are that it will hold its value very well. Thanks to variations in pricing and having gotten good deals, I have a few lenses that can still be bought new that I could sell used for more than I paid for them!

 

[dansamy]

While better glass is always going to be the best solution, some of these new cameras (K-x, T1i, etc) that can do good ISO 6400+ can get the same exposure at f/5.6. The better glass is going to look better due to less noise and the fact that it is just better glass, but the inexpensive zooms can now actually get those shots.

Good lenses all have good resale values. Especially true if the lenses aren't made any more. Pentax's 85mm F1.4, 24-70mm F2.8, and 80-200mm F2.8 are just a few off the top of my head that consistently sell well into the four figures for used models (none are currently made.) Conversely, entry-level lenses tend to have so-so resale values, no matter the brand.

Since we have some Pentax shooters, I'll ask ya'll too. I presently have the kit lenses. The 18-55mm and the 55-300mm sold with the Pentax K-x. I would like a few decent (I'm not terribly picky, soft still counts as decent to me) pictures with no flash inside the dark rides. Would I be better off looking for a "faster" lens? Or can I trust the high ISO capabilities of the camera to capture a fair shot in the darker rides, even with my slower lenses?

 

[Groucho]

I'd be happy to trade my 50mm F1.4 for your 55-300mm.

Well, maybe not... but what I was leading to is that the 50mm F1.4 is fairly affordable and a terrific low-light lens. It's not as cheap as it used to be (but then, what is?)...
ACK! I have to stop this in mid-reply. Prices really have shot up - when I bought mine, it was $190 or so. Now it's $360 at Amazon and $450 at B&H! Ouch. Still a great lens but not the bargain it once was!

You may want to take a look at the Marketplace area over on www.pentaxforums.com, there are a ton of lenses that go up for sale there all the time. A good bet would be a Pentax "A" or "F" lens, these will relay aperture information to the camera with makes metering easier. The "F" lenses will be autofocus which is nice, but you may find that you have the best luck manually focusing on the dark rides. You can often find A 50mm F1.7s and F2.0s selling fairly cheaply. The F 1.7 is a little more but still under $200, as are used F1.4s. (Some people feel that the F1.7 is slightly more pleasing optically but most people don't seem to see the difference and prefer the extra speed of the F1.4.) There are also a zillion other F2.8 and faster lenses.

Looking at new options, your most affordable options are probably the 50mm F1.4, 35mm F2.0, Sigma 30mm F1.4... and a bunch of F2.8s. I think F2.8 is probably the minimum you'd want for dark ride photos even with great high ISO capability. Plus, the faster lenses should be able to focus faster, regardless of your ISO abilities.

 

[ukcatfan]

WOW! I didn't realize the prices were up so much. The fisheye is way up as well. Do you think they are up due to popularity increases from the K-7 and K-x, or did they stop making some of the lenses?

 

[Groucho]

I think all the manufacturers have had fairly serious price hikes on lenses, partly due to the fluxuations of the yen, or so the excuse has been! (Try Googling "lens price hikes" to see everyone complaining! And I seem to recall some consternation around these parts when the Sigma 30mm started climbing in price.) The 50mm F1.4 probably has gone up more because it's an older full-frame lens - there aren't many "F" lenses left in their line-up. The fisheye has gone up but not dramatically - ~$500 at Amazon; I think it was $450 a year or two ago.

I'm sure glad I bought my 31mm when I did! I sure couldn't afford it now. Fortunately second-hand 77mm F1.8s are still affordable, I need to grab one of them before their price skyrockets...

This is a good response for anyone who ever said, "don't buy into Pentax because you may want to switch systems later" - I could easily sell my gear collection for more than I paid for it!

 

[Experiment_626]

if you want to try out all kinds of cameras at WDW, just wear a mult-pocket vest, cargo shorts and have a SLR strung around your neck - I had 5-6 people a day hand me their camera and ask me to take their pictures

Set up a tripod and wear a colorful Disney shirt, and you'll have people come up to you and hand you their Photopass cards. Happens to me at least five or six times a day when I'm in the parks. It is only a problem when those involved don't speak English ...