Help me find a SLR pretty please

[Jackatkc]

We visited DW in Oct, and saw the MNSSHP. I have a little Canon Power Shot SD300 that I took on this trip. When I tried to take pictures of the night time parade, it did not work out very well. Did not work out at all actually.

I have been reading post on here and elsewhere but still can't decide which is best for me for what I am looking for.

I am not interested in being a pro, or carrying different lenses on me. I am not interested in extreme closeups.

I am looking for a camera that will work well for family things, sports, sightseeing, and that also works at night.

I have looked at both the nikon D40x and the D80. Do you think the D40x will work for what I am looking for, or is there another camera out there that I should be thinking about?

Should I only buy the camera, and a seperate lens? Or does the lens in come with suffice for what I am interested in? I realize the D40x does not have autofocus..

Thanks in advance for the help!

 

[Steve's Girl]

I have the D80 with the 18-200VR and the 50mm 1.8. I use the 18-200VR lens most of the time and only change lenses for low-light needs. I was able to get really nice photos of the Spectromagic parade and other low-light situations with the 50mm lens. This set-up works very well for me and I do not have to change lenses that often. The downside is that this setup is on the pricey side when compared to other entry level DSLRs. I am very glad I went this route since I hate to change lenses and I know I would miss a lot of the photos I am able to get now just because I wouldn't want to stop and take the time to change lenses. The 18-200VR works well in low-light for non-moving subjects due to the VR.

 

[bfrosty]

I went with the Nikon D50, very happy...so much better than the point/shoot cameras.

My camera came with a 25-75mm lens and a 70-300mm lenses. I wish I could afford other lenses, but I would go for the Macro and a fisheye if I had the money.


Hint, get a UV lens to protect the original lenses (ie. scratches, dirt, etc.) Also, get a Polarizing lens on clear sky days or almost clear with a few puffy white clouds. This will make the sky look Azure blue...very cool and inexpensive.

 

[ukcatfan]

You should at least give a look at the Pentax, Canon, Sony, and Olympus entry level models. It sounds like you might be best off going with a long range zoom if carrying lenses is not an option. I know that Sigma and Tamron make these for pretty much all of the different lines (Oly could be an exception due to the 4/3 system that it uses). You give up some quality, but really gain on convenience. There are 18-135mm, 18-200mm, and 18-250mm models off the top of my head. Just remember that the more zoom range, the more you give up in optical quality. If wide is not needed, there are also models that start out at 24mm that may be cheaper. One last remark on lenses. If low light shooting is important, then you will likely want to at least add a 50mm prime. That will put a strike against the D40 and D40x due to the lack of autofocus on that particular lens. There are still some D50s around.

I have a Pentax K100D and I am very happy with it. That does not mean that it would be the best for you though. What are the reasons that you want to upgrade. You already mentioned low light, but what other situations do you want to improve?

Kevin

 

[ukcatfan]

Hint, get a UV lens to protect the original lenses (ie. scratches, dirt, etc.)

Not to hijack with the great filter/no filter debate, but the OP should know that a UV filter will degrade the quality of the image a little. I am in the lens hood for protection camp.

Kevin

 

[handicap18]

If all your looking for is something to upgrade from a PnS and aren't interested in changing lenses then the D40, which is less expensive than the D40x, combined with the 18-200mm VR lens would do you fine. However, you do mention night shots, specifically MNSSHP. That would require a wider aperture than the 18-200mm offers. Problem you run into with the D40 (and the D40x) is that they wont auto focus with many of Nikon's prime fast lenses (no focus motor in the body), most specifically the 50mm f/1.8 that runs about $110.

So that being said, see if you can find yourself a Nikon D50. Get the 18-200mm and have the 50mm f/1.8 for optional use (very nice portrait type lens and great in natural light for different results). No issues with auto focus with any of Nikons auto focus lenses with the D50 (or the D80 you mention). The 18-200mm is a great lens, but it is expensive. It does provide very good image quality and Vibration Reduction (VR). If that lens is to much, then there is an 18-135mm that can be found for around $300 (vs $700+ for the 18-200 when you can find it). But no VR and obviously not as long.

I don't think the D40x is worth the extra money over the D40 (or the D50 for that matter). More MP's doesn't mean better, just more expensive. The D80 is great, but it is quite a bit bigger and for your needs stated, might be considered to much camera.

All the camera's I mentioned have great high ISO performance. The D80 probably has the worst of the 4 mentioned, but it still is very good. The D50 and the D40 have the same sensor and are GREAT in high ISO performance. I've also read that the D40x, even with more MP's still does very well. High ISO (aka film speed) is important for night shots if you dont want to use a tripod or are photographing action indoors or moving subjects in lower light. This is really where the D50 combined with the 50mm f/1.8 lens really shine. 50mm with the 18-200mm or the 18-135mm the widest aperture you'll get is f/5, 3 stops smaller than the 50mm f/1.8. Thats a big difference.

 

[photo_chick]

Not to hijack with the great filter/no filter debate, but the OP should know that a UV filter will degrade the quality of the image a little. I am in the lens hood for protection camp.

Kevin

Not trying to hijack either, but ditto with the lens hood here! Not a UV filter fan either.

OP...I agree with what others have stated, the range of things you are talking about doing will likely require a couple of lenses to do well with a DSLR. When I go out to the Zoo or Siz Flags (have not made it to Disney with my DSLR yet) I take the camera with my 28-105mm and my 50mm lenses in a small bag. It is light and easy to cary. The 50mm is so small to stick in there and I am always glad I have it.

Are you sold on a Nikon? Canon and Pentax have great cameras out as well.

 

[Jackatkc]

Thanks for all the advice. There are not very many places at all that sell the D50 anymore.

I looked at the nikon 50mm af and it's over $300.00.

Whick Canon or Pentax should I be looking at?

Thanks again for the help!

 

[boBQuincy]

Thanks for all the advice. There are not very many places at all that sell the D50 anymore.

I looked at the nikon 50mm af and it's over $300.00.

Whick Canon or Pentax should I be looking at?

Thanks again for the help!

Canon's Rebel Xt (the previous model) is still available at some good deals, it gives up very little compared to the newer Rebel Xti. Canon's 50mm f/1.8 is about $80, sometimes even a little less.

As noted, to get good low light performance you will have to get used to changing lenses (or stick with the 50mm all the time). Any affordable zoom will be *much* slower than the 50mm f/1.8.

For Pentax, I expect you will hear from some of our Pentax champions very soon! And forget the UV filter, it's a waste of $$$. Spend the $ on a lens hood, it's a much better investment.

 

[ukcatfan]

For Pentax, I expect you will hear from some of our Pentax champions very soon! And forget the UV filter, it's a waste of $$$. Spend the $ on a lens hood, it's a much better investment.

Look at the K100D if you want IS in the body or the K110D if IS does not matter to you. It is about a $75-100 price difference. The reviews out there cover both cameras as the IS is the only difference. Please note that Pentax does not offer lens based IS, so it is not possible to add it later with lens purchases. The K10D is their other offering, but I believe it is in the tier above what you are looking at. There are still some older *ist models floating around, but the prices are usually not very good and they did not do as well at JPG, so you would likely be regulated to RAW most of the time (not an issue to many DSLR users).

Kevin

 

[handicap18]

Thanks for all the advice. There are not very many places at all that sell the D50 anymore.

I looked at the nikon 50mm af and it's over $300.00.

Whick Canon or Pentax should I be looking at?

Thanks again for the help!

Nikon has 2 50mm AF lenses. An f/1.4 and an f/1.8. The f/1.4 is about $300 and the f/1.8 is about $110. There is only a 1/3 stop difference. The 1.4 in a lot of peoples mind is sharper than the lesser expensive f/1.8, but the f/1.8 is by no means a soft lens. I find it very very sharp and produces excellent images. The f/1.4 verions I believe is built differently and is more solid, but I can tell you from personal experience that the f/1.8 version is built very well. It is small and can fit in my front pocket which I wear the big pocket shorts. Nice and easy to carry around. IMO the 1/3 stop difference and the other things are not worth the $200 or so higher price.

 

[Groucho]

I would not consider the D40x. If I had to choose a current Nikon, it'd be either the D40 or D80 (or higher, of course.) The D40x costs a lot more and gives you very little other than more megapixels, which are not worth the cost difference.

The D50 is preferable to the D40 but they're getting pretty hard to find.

For Pentax, the K100D is the way to go as the current rebates do not cover the K110D any longer, so it's only $50 more to get the K100D, which adds image stabilization (not an option with the Nikon or Canon, where you have to buy special, expensive image-stabilized lenses - and none of their 50mm lenses have it.)

For Canon, there's the XT and XTi, I think the XTi is fairly close in price now when bought online from somewhere like Beach, so may be worthwhile.

The circular polarizing filters mentioned earlier are pretty much useless on Nikon, Canon, and Sony kit lenses as their front element rotates when focusing, which screws up how you set your polarizer. You also don't get a lens hood with the Canon, I believe that the others all do include one.

As for SpectroMagic, it is a particularly difficult parade to shoot due to the low levels of light and constant motion. I got good (IMHO) results with ISO 1600 and a 50mm F1.4 lenses, either wide open or at F1.7.

In terms of lenses, if you're after the minimum number of lenses, I like the three-lens setup the best (short zoom like the kit 18-55mm lens, long zoom from maybe 50-70mm to 200-300mm, and a fast mid-range prime like a 50mm), at WDW if I could only have two, I'd have to have the short zoom and the fast 50mm. You can always crop a picture to "zoom in" on part of it but you can never make a slow lens catch fast action like a fast lens can.

I found that a belt-mounted lens pouch worked extremely well at WDW for carrying an extra lens without being a bother, while most of them stayed in the camera bag. Next trip, I'll probably pick up a second belt pouch and be able to swap between three lenses without going into the bag.

 

[Jackatkc]

Here is what I am thinking. Let me know if you would do something different,

Canon Digital Rebel XT SLR Camera Body Kit, 8 Megapixels Adorama 499.95

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Standard AutoFocus Lens Adorama 79.99

Tamron 18 - 200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF) AF Zoom Lens with Macro 389.00 Ad

I am pretty sure about the camera itself, and the 50mm lens. I'm not so sure about the 18-200. If there is a better lens that I should look at, and it's not an arm and a leg more expensive, can you lead me in the right direction?

Thanks again!

Jack

 

[mabas9395]

I would vote against getting a dSLR. In order to get the most out of a dSLR, you have to take it out of automatic mode and choose the settings that are right for that particular shot. For example, in a low light scene my auto mode might choose f/5.6, 1/4 second shutter speed and ISO 400 (in fact, I don't think it ever goes higher than 400 in auto mode). The camera doesn't know that I can't hand hold well at 1/4 second and the shot will be ruined. But I know that I can boost the ISO up to 1600 and open the aperture wider if I use aperture or shutter priority modes and get a great shot.

So if the OP or anyone else considering a dSLR thinks that they can use a dSLR like a point and shoot, where they just point it and shoot, then they will probably be disapointed. Yes, the shots taken in good light will probably be very good (especially if they use a Canon ) but those tricky shots like low light or fast action will not be as good as the user hopes.

Now I know that the OP didn't come out and say that he wasn't willing to learn the basics of photography and practice until he understands how aperture/shutter speed/iso balance together to properly expose a photo. If he wants to spend the time and effort, great! Go get a Rebel XT. If he wants a camera that he can enjoy right out of the box, but still have great results, then maybe a high end P&S is a better choice.

Just my two cents.

 

[Groucho]

I used to agree with that, but I've come around to the other side now. The ~10-15x larger sensor in a DSLR trumps everything else IMHO, even a DSLR on auto should consistently produce better, sharper photos than a PnS. Especially in low-light, even if it only goes to ISO 400 without fiddling.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I would vote against getting a dSLR. In order to get the most out of a dSLR, you have to take it out of automatic mode and choose the settings that are right for that particular shot. For example, in a low light scene my auto mode might choose f/5.6, 1/4 second shutter speed and ISO 400 (in fact, I don't think it ever goes higher than 400 in auto mode). The camera doesn't know that I can't hand hold well at 1/4 second and the shot will be ruined. But I know that I can boost the ISO up to 1600 and open the aperture wider if I use aperture or shutter priority modes and get a great shot.

I'm going to give the OP credit for not being a total moron and assume that they can learn a few basic things like how to change the ISO when it gets dark.

Even if they can't, they're still going to get better pictures with a typical DSLR on auto mode as compared to a typical P&S on auto mode. It's not like the P&S auto mode is smarter than the DSLR auto mode. The DSLR has many other IQ advantages it can use to get a better shot (including less shutter lag, less noise, higher ISO, better optics, lower magnification of optical flaws, etc.). A DSLR does have disadvantages like cost, size, and limited zoom range on a single lens.

It's true that someone that knows how to use their DSLR will get picture pictures than someone shooting in auto mode. It doesn't follow that someone should choose to use a P&S if they can't take their DSLR out of auto mode.

 

[handicap18]

Here is what I am thinking. Let me know if you would do something different,

Canon Digital Rebel XT SLR Camera Body Kit, 8 Megapixels Adorama 499.95

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Standard AutoFocus Lens Adorama 79.99

Tamron 18 - 200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF) AF Zoom Lens with Macro 389.00 Ad

I am pretty sure about the camera itself, and the 50mm lens. I'm not so sure about the 18-200. If there is a better lens that I should look at, and it's not an arm and a leg more expensive, can you lead me in the right direction?

Thanks again!

Jack

I don't know that I would go with the Tamron or Sigma 18-200mm. Once you get past 140mm or so the widest aperture is f/6.3 which is really only good outdoors in good light. I've also read about a lot of focus hunting at the long end on those camera's. You might be better served with the Sigma 18-125mm, then down the road get yourself a Canon or Sigma 70-300mm for the long stuff. Sigma4Less.com has the 18-125mm for $240. The also have the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro for $184. There is a lesser expensive model, but the APO is a very good lens for the money.

I would vote against getting a dSLR. In order to get the most out of a dSLR, you have to take it out of automatic mode and choose the settings that are right for that particular shot. For example, in a low light scene my auto mode might choose f/5.6, 1/4 second shutter speed and ISO 400 (in fact, I don't think it ever goes higher than 400 in auto mode). The camera doesn't know that I can't hand hold well at 1/4 second and the shot will be ruined. But I know that I can boost the ISO up to 1600 and open the aperture wider if I use aperture or shutter priority modes and get a great shot.

So if the OP or anyone else considering a dSLR thinks that they can use a dSLR like a point and shoot, where they just point it and shoot, then they will probably be disapointed. Yes, the shots taken in good light will probably be very good (especially if they use a Canon ) but those tricky shots like low light or fast action will not be as good as the user hopes.

Now I know that the OP didn't come out and say that he wasn't willing to learn the basics of photography and practice until he understands how aperture/shutter speed/iso balance together to properly expose a photo. If he wants to spend the time and effort, great! Go get a Rebel XT. If he wants a camera that he can enjoy right out of the box, but still have great results, then maybe a high end P&S is a better choice.

Just my two cents.

For many many years I used my film SLR as a PnS camera. I rarely got crappy pics unless I forgot to change something from the previous outing. I didn't venture into aperture priority hardly ever and occassionally shutter priority. I put the film in and basically left it on Program. I had learned the basics in HS, but forgot everything. I liked the quality of the images, the ability to change lenses and have a more powerful flash. I traveled all around the world doing this and was rarely, if ever, disapointed in my pictures.

 

[jann1033]

while i haven't use the auto modes much on my dslr i used them all the time on my slr and got great shots with them. if the additional cost is worth it to the op, go for it you'll probably learn to use it eventually ane will have a nice camera till you do

 

[mabas9395]

My response was less about what the OP can and can't learn and less about what a dSLR can and can't do and more about expectations. Many people see what is wrong with their P&S, read that a dSLR will fix these problems, and then buy one with the expectation that their problems are solved. Some of their problems will be solved with Auto mode. But many people will not get the kind of results they are expecting in those tricky situations unless they take it out of Auto.

My wife is using my Rebel XT right now to take some shots of my DS7's 2nd grade class for a class project. I put it on Auto mode for her and I'm sure she will get great shots. But she has no desire to learn any of the advanced modes/features. But if we want pictures of my DS10's indoor soccer game, she gives the camera to me and I shoot fully manual. Now if my wife had the expectation that she could get good indoor soccer shots using Auto mode, she would be very disappointed with the results. My wife is not a total moron either (although she did marry me so that is one strike against her), so she could learn the basic settings if she wanted to. But she has no desire to fiddle with the buttons on a camera. She just wants to point and shoot. Which is why a P&S is better for her.

I truly believe that getting the most out of a dSLR requires effort. As long as your expectations match up with the amount of effort you are willing to make, you will be happy. Whether that be low expectations and low effort or high expectations and higher effort.

But maybe I should change my vote from "against getting a dSLR" to "make sure a dSLR is right for you". Just because a dSLR is considered "better" than a P&S, doesn't mean that everyone who wants better photos should go out and buy one.

 

[Groucho]

I think when the price differential was fairly large, it made more sense to recommend a DSLR only to those who were pretty serious. Now, with the prices so close to what a high-end PnS costs ($400 w/lens for a K110D, $50 more for a K100D), I think that if someone's willing to bear the extra size and weight, they'll gain great benefits. Yes, you won't have the zoom range (with kit lens only) or movie mode of a high-end PnS, but you'll have so much more flexibility, control, and most importantly, that much larger sensor. You'll probably have a lot better build quality, too.