Buying new camera

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Hi guys,

I currently own Nikon Coolpix 5700. The camera is exactly five years old now and I feel that time has come to upgrade it.

I've read all reviews of above mentioned cameras (except D60 and XSi, of course) at dpreview.com. I've looked at all specs and compared sample images side by side. The problem is that, imho, SLR cameras have improved to the point when the market has become saturated with cameras of various prices but with little to no differences in quality or features. (five years ago, you could easily see distinctive noise levels when comparing a $1500 camera with a $2000, sub $1000 SLR didn't exist back then).

Here are some of my other issues/concerns:

• How can you justify paying almost double for Canon 40D vs XTi? I know I must be missing something and I need your input to help me make a decision. (Budget is not an issue; I can afford any of these cameras, I just don't want to spend extra $$$ on something that has no benefit to me).
  
• I am a noob when it comes to lenses, although I owned a Minolta film SLR, i never switched lenses. My question is this: I know that D60 (and D40X) don't come with focus drive motor - what difference does it make beside the fact that any new lens that I would have to buy for D60 must come with a motor? Do these lenses cost extra? Are there any other disadvantages?
  
• D60 has ISO and WB settings buried deep in menu - how much of inconvenience is this?
  
• Are there any differences (price, performance) between the fastest SDHC and the fastest CompactFlash memory?
  
• Top view LCD - how important is it to have one?
  
• Is it worth waiting for XSi and D60? Will they offer significant improvements to currently available XTi/40D/D80?
  

Please share with me any other of your thoughts in regards to these five cameras so that I can make a better purchasing decision.

TIA

Edited February 15, 2008 by Zhivago

[giga Veteran]

Very good questions. I'll break it down into parts.

Part 1 - 40D vs XTI

The 40D and XTi differ greatly in almost all aspects in terms of body, ergonomics, and handling. Image quality will be on par and you'd be troubled to find a difference between the two. That said, the difference between the two are very large and the price is based largely on the "prosumer" features it offers. This includes:

1. The much improved body. The Canon xxD series are made from magnesium alloy. Though this does incur an increase in weight, the body is much sturdier and feels really well made in your hands. The grips are also padded well with rubber all around. Personally, I can't hold a Rebel in my hand without having some discomfort--they are a lot smaller than they seem. If you were to get a Rebel or already have one, I would advise on getting a battery grip as its a world of a difference in comfort.

2. Controls. Looks again at the picture above and you'll notice the large spin wheel as well as a joystick like controller above that. Navigation and the controls for changing settings are actually much simpler and easier to use. I use my spin-wheel to flip through reviewing images, navigate through menus and change settings (such as ISO, AF mode, EC, metering mode, etc). The joystick above the wheel I use to change my AF points. When looking through the viewfinder, I simply move the joystick to whichever AF point I want.

Now observe this image:

You'll notice the status LCD as well as the line of buttons above it. The importance of the top view LCD is to always have a place where you can check your settings quickly. In addition to using less power, the settings and numbers that it displays won't disappear once you half press your shutter release as LCDs do. The 4 buttons aligned along the top are also equally important in the design of the xxD which separates it from the Rebel series. Here's the XTI

You'll see that all the controls are at the rear of the camera rather than the top. Now imagine yourself holding the camera up to your face with your eye in the viewfinder. Try and change some settings with the XTI. Now try and imagine it with the 40D. All it takes is to simply lift your index finger off of the shutter release and onto either of the 4 buttons in order to change settings. The viewfinder will display all the information when you change your settings and you won't have to take your eye off the viewfinder. (the XTi will only display your settings and changes on the LCD)

Other important differences:

- Selectable ISO3200. When you're in a tough situation with **** poor lighting and you're stuck with a slow lens, this will save you. It's much noisier than 1600 but still resolves a lot of detail where the noise can be generally cleaned with processing. A noisy image is better than a blurry one--don't be afraid to use high ISOs.

-6.5 FPS continuous shooting. Important if you're into shooting fast action and sports as it can shoot A LOT of frames within a small time frame.

-AF. Though the XTI's AF is good, the 40D improves on it with several diamond shaped cross-type AF points. Really excellent AF when you're dealing with bad lighting.

-DIGIC III. 14 bit image processing. Generally higher dynamic range. (Better when trying to recover blown out raw images.) Also faster image processing and generally better ISO performance. Highlight tony priority is also great when you have harsh lighting conditions with lots of contrast.

-Viewfinder. The XTI has a pentamirror viewfinder with 95% frame coverage and .8x magnification. The 40D has a pentaprism viewfinder with 95% frame coverage and .95x magnification. Pentaprisms are generally much brighter than pentamirrors and the 40Ds .95x magnification outputs a very large frame when you put your eye up to the viewfinder. In addition, the 40D has spot-metering which can be readily seen in the viewfinder.

-Live view. I generally am not a fan of Live View as viewfinders will always have more accurate colors and lighting but it's useful if you do precise macro shooting.

-Battery life. Larger battery on the 40D which can generally take twice as many shots as the XTI.

-AF-ON button. Again, if you're a sports shooter this is really handy as you can continually focus with this button while triggering the shutter independently with your index finger.

Part 2 - Lens

As the D40/D60 line doesn't have an AF motor, they can't utilize older lens which don't have an AF mechanism. These old gems generally include most of Nikon's fast primes. (Nikkor AF) and several Sigma/Tamrons. Scroll down here to AF lens: http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5

AF Lenses

AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED

AF NIKKOR 14mm f/2.8D ED

AF Fisheye-NIKKOR 16mm f/2.8D

AF NIKKOR 18mm f/2.8D

AF NIKKOR 20mm f/2.8D

AF NIKKOR 24mm f/2.8D

AF NIKKOR 28mm f/2.8D

AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D

AF Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8D

AF Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4D IF-ED

AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D

AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D

AF NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4D IF

AF NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8D

AF DC-NIKKOR 105mm f/2D

AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D

AF NIKKOR 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED

AF Zoom-NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED

AF Zoom-NIKKOR 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G

AF Zoom-NIKKOR 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D

AF Zoom-NIKKOR 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED

AF Zoom-NIKKOR 35-70mm f/2.8D

AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED

AF Zoom-NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

As you can see, these are generally the fast primes which are handy for portraits and low light work. Those apertures can go as large as 1.4 which are pretty much a must-have for indoor low light shots or where you want nice DOF/bokeh.

Prime lens are generally a bit more expensive due to their large constant apertures but pay off in sharpness, distortion, and speed compared to zooms.

Part 3 - SD/CF and XSi/D60.

CF at the moment is faster than SD. This generally won't make a large difference in camera image writing, but will when transferring images to the computer. Extreme IVs can read/write up to 40MB/s which would translate to approximately 3-4 raws per second. SD hasn't quite reached there yet but there were new prototypes shown at PMA--it should be here in the future.

The XSi is a generally good improvement upon the XTi but the $300 extra premium is really up to you. It has a twelve megapixel CMOS sensor, 3.0" LCD monitor, Live View with both AF modes (contrast-detect and passive), 14-bit processing and RAW, spot metering, improved AF (from the 40D), 3.5 fps continuous shooting, a larger viewfinder, SD/SDHC storage and a new higher capacity battery. It also has an improved body with a better grip and an ISO button at the top for easier settings changes. Here's a comparison of the bodies--take note of the better grip, larger buttons, ISO button at the top, and the larger LCD.

If you have a D40x now, it'd be pointless to go for D60 as its the exact same body with a few improvements. (sensor cleaning, highlight tone priority, stop motion recording, and in-camera editing). The D80 would be a better investment if you're coming from the D40 line. As for settings buried in menus--I can't comment on that as I haven't used one enough for me to make any judgments on it.

What would my recommendation be? I can't really say as they're all great choices and will take fantastic pictures. You said you don't have a budget limit--so why not get a Nikon D3 or a 1ds Mark III? :p

I'd advise you to just go to a camera or electronics store and just try them out. Handle the camera, change its settings, take pictures with it, etc.

We could give a better approximation to get the camera you want though from general specifics from you. What type of shooting do you or want to do? A body won't make as much a difference in your images as much as a lens will.

If I were to pick from your poll though, I would go for either the 40D, 30D*, D80, or XSi. The prices for all four of those are $700 and above mind you though. Yes, I added the 30D in there as its still a very capable camera despite its age--its about $750 right now which puts it at about the range of the XSi. If your budget limits to you under $750 or you simply won't use or don't need these extra features, I would go for an XTi or D40x as they're equally capable cameras in terms of image quality at a low price point. Spending unnecessary amounts of money on something you won't use would be pointless--I'd rather use those funds to amplify your lens collection or help charities.

[crazzy88ss]

I'd go with a D80 or a 40D. I voted D80 cuz I use nikon, although they're both great cameras to me, and if it was a multichoice question, I would have picked both.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

WOW! I'm impressed! Thank you so much for the superb explanation!

I'm so sold on 40D! My birthday is next week and this will be a nice present for myself, plus I wasn't ready to wait till April for XSi :D

However, I'm disappointed how companies have to use cheap tactics such as cripple an excellent product to charge premium on it.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

A question to people who voted for Nikon D80: what would you say are the major advantages of D80 over Canon's 40D?

[Brandon]

There are none. the 30D and 40D beat it in everything

Personally, I'd pick up a 30D, as for the price you can't beat it, and it would allow you to spend some money on lenses. I chose a 40D since I primarily shoot sports, so the extra AF would be beneficial to me, but for general use is it worth $300 more for the 40D, probably not.

As for lenses, it depends how much you want to spend. I'd recommend a Sigma 24-60 2.8 for around $230, along with the 70-200L F/4 for $500 as they aren't the top of the line, but they are fast lenses and would allow you to expand much further then the cheaper "kit" lenses

. Also, I'd pick up an external flash. Whether it is a Sunpak 383 where you manually set it, or a Canon 430ex where its all auto, it again depends on use and money available.

[giga Veteran]

A question to people who voted for Nikon D80: what would you say are the major advantages of D80 over Canon's 40D?

The Nikon D80 is meant to compete with the Canon Rebel line really. (and which it fairs very well in compared to the D40/D60). The Nikon D200 is more directed at the Canon 30D and the Nikon D300 at the Canon 40D.

Consumer/Entry-Level

Canon Rebel XTI - $500

Nikon D40x - $500

Nikon D80 - $750

Prosumer/Enthusiast

Canon 30D - $750

Canon 40D - $1100

Nikon D200 - $1100

Nikon D300 - $1700

I agree about spending less on the body and more on your lens and the accessories that you'll want.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Thank you for your input guys. I really appreciate it.

What kind of lens would you recommend for EOS 40D? I'm looking for one with IS and USM.

[giga Veteran]

How much are you willing to spend and what range? IS and USM is pretty expensive.

General Purpose Walkaround:

Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM - $900

Canon 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS - $200

Tamron 17-50 2.8 - $450

Sigma 18-50 2.8 macro - $375

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 $350

I myself actually ordered a Sigma 24-60mm 2.8 which is going for $200 at amazon right now. Since its widest is 24mm, I plan to get a Sigma 10-20 to cover that range.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

My budget for the lens is upto $1000. Am I better off buying the best possible all around lens for this amount? If so which one? Or will I be better off buying 2-3 less expensive lenses for various purposes?

I also can't pick one among the following:

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I also need recommendations on a macro lens, please )))

Also, what attributes would you be looking for in a lens for specific applications such as: portrait, sports, animals, landscpae, interiors, architecture?

tia.

[giga Veteran]

My budget for the lens is upto $1000. Am I better off buying the best possible all around lens for this amount? If so which one? Or will I be better off buying 2-3 less expensive lenses for various purposes?

I also can't pick one among the following:

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I also need recommendations on a macro lens, please )))

Also, what attributes would you be looking for in a lens for specific applications such as: portrait, sports, animals, landscpae, interiors, architecture?

tia.

Portaits - generally fast primes and telephoto. Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 50mm 1.4, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 135mm 2.0

Macro - Canon 60mm macro, Canon 100mm macro. Basically lens that can produce a 1:1 image.

Sports/Wildlife - telephoto. Any of the Canon 70-200s are great but IS and the faster 2.8 apertures are more expensive. Larger focal length lenses are also available such as the 400mm, 500mm, and up but that comes with a price hike.

Landscape/Architecture - Wide angle lens. Canon 10-22mm, Sigma 10-20mm, Tokina 12-24mm. Walkaround lens that start at 17mm would be fine as well, you just wouldn't be getting the ultra wide.

Interior - You'll be limited in light for interior shots, so I would recommend a fast prime for that as well. Fast primes are excellent for both portraits and low light interior shooting.

The 17-55 IS is one of the highest regarded lens in its class. That said, it's a whopping $1000 by itself and you'd be missing other options that you wanted such as macro and portraits. The 17-85 is a good starter lens but its too slow for my own taste. The 24-105L is excellent as well but you'd be losing the wide end of the focal length.

My recommendation:

Tamron 17-50 2.8 - $360 - walkaround, landscapes/architecture, portraits

Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro - $450 - macro, portraits

Canon 50mm 1.8 - $70 - low light, portraits

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Again, thank you very much, Giga.

My next question is:

will it be possible to achieve a shallow depth-of-field with background blur as shown here with this lens or any other lens? and how is such effect produced?

p.s. I think I'm starting to understand how lenses work a little better, but there are still a lot of things that I'm not sure about. I've been refering to wikipedia for answers, but those articles are too technical for me sometimes, is there any other resource about the lenses that you would recommend me?

[giga Veteran]

Again, thank you very much, Giga.

My next question is:

will it be possible to achieve a shallow depth-of-field with background blur as shown here with this lens or any other lens? and how is such effect produced?

p.s. I think I'm starting to understand how lenses work a little better, but there are still a lot of things that I'm not sure about. I've been refering to wikipedia for answers, but those articles are too technical for me sometimes, is there any other resource about the lenses that you would recommend me?

For some nice shallow depth of field, you want 2.8 or faster. The 17-55 should be fine as its a constant 2.8 aperture.

For lens: http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html

Cameras: http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/cameras.html

These were both shot with my 50mm but at different apertures:

1.8

2.8

Both have depth of field, but as you can see the 1.8 is much shallower with more creamy blur in the background.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Giga, could you recommend me a tripod and a flash for eos 40d (already ordered! :woot: )? Looking to spend around $200-400 for both.

[giga Veteran]

Giga, could you recommend me a tripod and a flash for eos 40d (already ordered! :woot: )? Looking to spend around $200-400 for both.

430EX flash - $230

Tripod: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showth...ighlight=tripod

[bloodrain]

40D and save up for some great lenses, you cant go wrong

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Cool, thanks again, Giga :)

About the lenses: do you think "EF 50mm f/1.4 USM" is worth extra $200 over the price of "EF 50mm f/1.8 II" ?

[Brandon]

Depends how much you plan on using it, and where. In low light, yes. The 1.8 has a terrible time focusing in low light (indoors for example) but if you have enough ambient light it will be fine.

[giga Veteran]

Depends how much you plan on using it, and where. In low light, yes. The 1.8 has a terrible time focusing in low light (indoors for example) but if you have enough ambient light it will be fine.

Pretty much. If you're on a budget, the 50 1.8 is a steal at $70. Otherwise, the 1.4 is better than it in every way. (especially build)

[Brandon]

I personally don't plan on using mine much now that I have a 24-60 2.8. I rarely need the full 1.8, and my 2.8 is a lot better in the focusing department.

Only time would possibly be night shots where I would be forced to MF

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Hi, Giga!

/wave guys

Here?s my update:

I?ve been reading a lot about lenses in the last several days. A LOT! Really. 95% of all time that I?ve been online since last Friday, I?ve spent reading about the lenses or comparing models and prices. Making the decision about the camera was a lot easier.

The good news is that I know exactly what I want now. I just don?t know what is the best way to get it. And by best I mean the most practical way ? the way that will benefit me the most in the long-term. So...I want at least one fast lens. Good low-light performance and the Bokeh are both extremely important to me. Macro and wide angle share the second spot in my priority list. Telephoto and standard zoom aPlan A.>Plan A.

EF 35mm f/1.4L USM (or EF 24mm f/1.4L USM);

+ EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM to Plan B.>Plan B.

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM;

EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM;

EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM OR EF 20-35mm f/3.Plan C.>Plan C.

EF 28mm f/1.8 USM;

EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM;

+ something ePlan D.>Plan D.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

+ something else later, possibly a wide aPlan E.>Plan E.

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

+ a macro lens later.

:: :s :cry:

Edited February 21, 2008 by Zhivago

[giga Veteran]

I like Plan E. 24-70 will cover your walkaround range so you will have the versatility when you need it and the 50 1.4 for low light/bokeh.

(though I would rather get the 17-55 IS over the 24-70 on a crop body)

If I were to throw versatility or convenience out the window, I would go with Plan B.(but skip those lenses on the 3rd line)

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Hi guys,

I am very close to ordering lenses now and I'll probably stick with plan E.

However, there's one thing I don't fully understand. It is about macro photography. I know that I need 1:1 ratio or better for macro photography, but this type of spec is nowhere to be found for Canon's lenses. As for EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, Canon's website says "up to life-size (1x) magnification" which leaves me confused as to how close it actually is to 1:1 ratio. Another question is, how good will EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM perform for macro photography? What kind of magnification ratio does it give?

[giga Veteran]

1x magnification means as they said--lifesize. The image being captured on sensor is the same size as the object photographed. (1:1). The 100mm macro has a minimum focus distance of .31m.

The 70-200 has a minimum focus distance of 1.5m at 200mm. (1:6 ratio)

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

How did you get 1:6? ))