Help me choose a dSLR system

[Bernie Gunther]

For a grand right now you can get a new D200 plus kit lens (forget which)

The other lens you might want to look at is the newish 70-300 VR which is again supposed to be very nice, so if you were buying new, then you'd be on about £1300. What I'd do though, particularly since you'll be saving up for a while by the sound of it, is go to someone very reliable like Greys of Westminster and buy a good used D200, plus say an 18-70 kit lens. That should leave you with enough for a new 70-300 VR or maybe even an second-hand prime like the very good 300/4 and still stay on budget.

Here's a subjective (opinionated) but well-respected and comprehensive guide to all of the Nikon lenses. http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

 

[weltweit]

Assuming Canon is the way forward, all 2nd hand items:

body + kit lens.
70-200 f2.8 L USM.
300mm 2.8L IS USM.

Ok, will try .. from Nikon

D50 or D60 or D80 body

- Nikon 70-200 f2.8 AFS VR (is expensive but very good optical quality)

- or Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM which is highly regarded and a lot less money but not VR (VR is Vibration reduction, like Canon's IS)

- 300mm f4 (may be AFS not sure but very well regarded optically / not as fast as the canon f2.8)

I am not really the right person to advise you. Once I made my choices I spent less time keeping up with what is available so am not exactly a font of knowledge.

Hopefully someone else with more knowhow will chip in, otherwise I recommend you spend some time in the lens forums on dpreview.com

 

[Grobelaar]

You're watching firky. He's the one who gives it to his Nikon body like a wrong'un. I'm a bit precious with my 400D.

as well you should, cos like all good Canons it's made of cheap plastic and cannot be used for the sport of SLR footie that all good Nikons can be used for...

 

[snadge]

Not so fussed about AF working, but decent metering is a must.

What do you think is an equivilent set up to the canon one I described on the last page?

well I will stick by my original suggestion, canon glass is cheaper than nikon and the ef 100-400L is an excellent lens, you can pick 'em up new for £800 on ebay, cheaper 2cnd hand and if you are using it for little critters you will need 400+ honestly, I have tried it.

equiv nikon is stupid money.

although if you were going for wide angle stuff I would recommend nikon but as soon as you go telephoto, only one way to go, why do you think you see a huge proportion of beige canon L lens at every sporting event.

It's not because nikon are worse, in fact it's because nikon have no comparable glass and canons are FAR better at high ISO.

and don't bother with the sigma 50-500, you need LOTS of light and it's autofocus is shit slow.

 

[weltweit]

well I will stick by my original suggestion, canon glass is cheaper than nikon and the ef 100-400L is an excellent lens, you can pick 'em up new for £800 on ebay, cheaper 2cnd hand and if you are using it for little critters you will need 400+ honestly, I have tried it.
....

Not sure I agree.

The Nikon 80-400 f4.8-5.6 AF VR is possibly equivalent to the Canon 100-400L and it can be picked up for about £800 new. It does focus faster on more powerful bodies though as it is not AFS but is "screw" focus.

+ the best way to photo critters is from a hide and good use of food etc can mean they are right in front of you which means 400mm can be very adequate!

 

[snadge]

Not sure I agree.

The Nikon 80-400 f4.8-5.6 AF VR is possibly equivalent to the Canon 100-400L and it can be picked up for about £800 new. It does focus faster on more powerful bodies though as it is not AFS but is "screw" focus.

+ the best way to photo critters is from a hide and good use of food etc can mean they are right in front of you which means 400mm can be very adequate!

So no autofocus on a cheaper nikon body and poor high iso

Why do the nikon boys keep beating a dead donkey, answer me this, why do the majority of sporting event photographers use canon in a huge majority?

and if you do like nikon lenses so much, use 'em on a canon body with better high iso performance.

shame you can't use the better range canon lenses on a nikon body though isn't it.

 

[weltweit]

So no autofocus on a cheaper nikon body and poor high iso

Well thinking about it, I would recommend at least a D80 which has screw mount autofocus.

I think it is a false economy to buy a D40 / D60 because then to have autofocus you have to buy the more expensive AFS lenses.

BTW, what are the fstops on the canon 100-400? how fast is it and what does USM mean?

 

[weltweit]

... Why do the nikon boys keep beating a dead donkey, answer me this, why do the majority of sporting event photographers use canon in a huge majority?

Not sure this is so true now though.
I was watching at Wimbledon and there were a lot of big black lenses out there, more than I have seen for a long time.

and if you do like nikon lenses so much, use 'em on a canon body with better high iso performance. ...

My Fuji S2 has an excellent ISO1600 !

 

[snadge]

Well thinking about it, I would recommend at least a D80 which has screw mount autofocus.

I think it is a false economy to buy a D40 / D60 because then to have autofocus you have to buy the more expensive AFS lenses.

BTW, what are the fstops on the canon 100-400? how fast is it and what does USM mean?

canon EF 100-400 IS L F4.5/5.6 USM= ultra silent motor ( which it is and VERY fast focus)

A D80 will take him well over budget.

 

[snadge]

you can get a canon prime 400 f5.6 for around £600 new or a f2.8 vers for £3500 new or go even bigger to 500 or 600.

Nikon has no comparable lenses in that range.

When photographing Tennis the lens needed does not need as much reach as you would for say football or the olympics, I'll put a side bet on with you and will say that when the olympics is televised you will see a huge majority using canon.

 

[snadge]

My Fuji S2 has an excellent ISO1600 !

but it hasn't got any reach though has it and I doubt the high iso is as good as a 400d or even your nikon due to it's small ccd.

 

[Refused as fuck]

I don't see many Nikons at the football. In fact I can't remember seeing one. Usually it's Canon.

 

[weltweit]

but it hasn't got any reach though has it and I doubt the high iso is as good as a 400d or even your nikon due to it's small ccd.

What do you mean by reach? its a camera body and the CCD is probably the same size as in the 400d.

 

[weltweit]

you can get a canon prime 400 f5.6 for around £600 new or a f2.8 vers for £3500 new or go even bigger to 500 or 600.

Nikon has no comparable lenses in that range.
...

Well you can get a good idea of the current range of Nikon lenses from their website, see below:

Nikkor Lenses:
http://www.europe-nikon.com/family/en_GB/categories/broad/4.html

Telephoto zoom:
http://www.europe-nikon.com/family/en_GB/categories/broad/24.html

from: 70-200mm f2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR
to: 200-400mm f4G ED-IF AF-S VR

Super Telephoto:
http://www.europe-nikon.com/family/en_GB/categories/broad/25.html

From: 200mm f2 ED-IF AF-S VR
to : 600mm f4D ED-IF AF-S II



Then there is the older lenses which are no longer supplied and there are plenty of good long lenses there some of which you may need a D2X or a D200 to meter on.

 

[weltweit]

canon EF 100-400 IS L F4.5/5.6 USM= ultra silent motor ( which it is and VERY fast focus)

Well then I would guess that the Canon 100-400 is possibly a better bet than the Nikon 80-400 VR although apparently the canon does not have VR/IS Vibration reduction.

The main complaint nikon users have for the 80-400 is that it is slow to focus and could do with AFS (nikon terminology for Canons USM), the canon has that and therefore could be more usable.

A D80 will take him well over budget.

It might be worth considering a used D200.

tbh (I expect you would agree) his budget is a bit tight for what he wants.

 

[snadge]

Well then I would guess that the Canon 100-400 is possibly a better bet than the Nikon 80-400 VR although apparently the canon does not have VR/IS Vibration reduction.

The main complaint nikon users have for the 80-400 is that it is slow to focus and could do with AFS (nikon terminology for Canons USM), the canon has that and therefore could be more usable.



It might be worth considering a used D200.

tbh (I expect you would agree) his budget is a bit tight for what he wants.

Canon EF 100-400 f4.5/5.6 IS L, IS is image stabilisation which has 2 modes.

The L series lens is canon professional line

And no I believe his budget to be almost spot on for my suggestions.

 

[snadge]

What do you mean by reach? its a camera body and the CCD is probably the same size as in the 400d.

oops I thought it was a p&s

 

[snadge]

I don't see many Nikons at the football. In fact I can't remember seeing one. Usually it's Canon.

That is correct, Nikon V Canon in the telephoto end, no competition, look at the professionals.

as I have already said under 100mm user choice.

 

[weltweit]

So lets get it clear - also for the benefit of the op

Nikon AFS = Canon USM
Nikon VR = Canon IS

The canon 100-400 is actually :

Canon EF 100-400 f4.5/5.6 IS USM L

While the Nikon 80-400 is actually :

Nikon 80-400mm f4.8-5.6 AF VR


So the canon has USM (AFS) which the nikon does not have.

How much is the canon new?

 

[snadge]

So lets get it clear - also for the benefit of the op

Nikon AFS = Canon USM
Nikon VR = Canon IS

The canon 100-400 is actually :

Canon EF 100-400 f4.5/5.6 IS USM L

While the Nikon 80-400 is actually :

Nikon 80-400mm f4.8-5.6 AF VR


So the canon has USM (AFS) which the nikon does not have.

How much is the canon new?

£800 ish, maybe cheaper if you buy from overseas.

 

[weltweit]

£800 ish, maybe cheaper if you buy from overseas.

That is quite a lot of technology for the money. I think the nikon is about the same but then it does not have AFS/USM.

Still, budget wise, it does not leave him that much to get a body and wide lens.

 

[thelittlechef]

I think the wide lens is just going to be a dirt cheap kit lens, I can save for a proper wide later (or just stand further away from the landscape?!).

weltweit: I know I am trying to squeeze an awful lot into the budget... I think I am going to put aside about £200 for a second hand body and then up to a max. of £1000 for glass. Hoping to get a 30d or d200 for my tiny body budget, with a bit of luck and people becoming more desperate for cash I migh manage... I think I am still on the canon side of things, but I find it difficult without spending 6 months living with the kit to decide which I like best.

 

[weltweit]

I don't think you will go far wrong with either nikon or canon. Both make some excellent equipment.

When I was making my mind up I made a spreadsheet and listed the items I wanted from each system and how much it would cost to get some new some used.

I also played with each camera in shops and noted which I felt more comfortable with, handling and menu wise etc.. (though I ended up buying from internet stores because they were cheaper).

Whatever you end up with I think two things will be true :

1) whatever it is it will have charachteristics, pros and cons and you will have to get to know it intimately in order to get the best performance out of it. Again whatever it is there will be some types of photo which it will be more or less suited to, and that may determine where you have most success.

2) there will be people making extraordinary photographs with the same equipment you have, so you will know that excellence is possible and perhaps that it is as much the input of the photographer that determines the fineness of the resulting images as it is the actual equipment.

If you are planning to get a second hand body, be aware that shutters do not last forever. On some cameras it is possible to work out how many exposures the shutter has taken (on mine for instance there is the image file number and the directory number combined to give you the actual number of exposures). Some of the cheaper cameras have shutters which you can expect about 50,000 clicks from. As far as I understand it cameras like the D200 (more upmarket) have a lot longer lasting shutters.

 

[mauvais]

There's a lot of fairly fanboyish stuff going on here, it seems to me. Nikon and Canon are broadly equal at every level. You don't see as many Nikon lenses at sports events, but now the D3 is arguably better than the 1D (note not 1Ds, not a valid comparison). Noise in particular has dramatically improved. None of this is particularly relevant to the OP's budget.

 

[snadge]

That is quite a lot of technology for the money. I think the nikon is about the same but then it does not have AFS/USM.

Still, budget wise, it does not leave him that much to get a body and wide lens.

My suggestions for 1200 smackeroonies

EF100-400 IS L £800 max (new)
EF 28-135 IS £140 S/H ( cracking lens, my first decent lens before the L glass purge)

Leaves £260 for a S/H Canon Body, doesn't have to be the best, you can get a 300D S/H for £150 now,or get a S/H 100-400 and spend a little more on a body or even upgrade later.

first purchase after that would be a waxxa tripod.

 

[snadge]

Adding to this, on ebay canon 20d (mag body, useable iso 3200 ) sold for £170, semi pro, shutter good for 200.000 actuations

EF 28-135 IS sold for £120

EF 100-400, no S/H (nobody really wants to sell 'em) but new from UK for £790 inc pnp.

leaves you £110 towards a decent tripod and head, there is a manfrotto 55cl tripod with 141 head unit at £45 with a day to go.


And that is a superb bit of kit.

 

[thelittlechef]

Visited some camera shops today. I didn't like the way the Nikons felt, and prefered the layout and menu systems of the cannon - although I reckon I'd get to know the Nikon quickly and wouldn't mind the layout/menus.

So, Latest ideas - second hand 30D, new sigma 120-400 OS (IS), cheapo kit lens. I haven't really looked at the non-canon lenses, and I'm a bit wary of them. Anyone have any good experiences with sigma? The internet seems to be littered with bad ones... (Maybe my answer is right there?)

 

[weltweit]

Don't know anything about a 120-400 OS (IS) [do you mean HSM which is sigma for AFS/USM fast focussing or do you mean like canon IS Vibration reduction?] never come across anyone with one or seen any images made with one. What speed / f stops does it have?

I do know that some Sigma lenses are rated by users often ones that carry the EX suffix which is there best / most expensive range. The 70-200 f2.8 HSM for example is rated as good by quite a few people.

 

[thelittlechef]

It is OS (IS) and HSM (USM), and although not EX, apparently they are now reserving that suffix for lenses with constant f number across the zoom range, it is EX quality (according to some unverified bloke I found on the internet!). It is f4.5-5.6.

It's fairly new (thus why buying new and not S/H), but costs similar to some S/H canon 100-400L I have seen...

This whole thing is so complicated! Feel happier I am now firmly in the canon camp though - apart from the fact I seem to have decided on a 20 minute play around in a camera shop...

 

[thelittlechef]

Oh No! Someone let me play with their D200...