Camera and lense????? which one to get

[evilbert]

Hi guys, one of my first posts but i have read a lot of the "which lenses to buy" threads which have been really helpful but i am a complete newb to 'proper photography', I have never had a DSLR before and have tried my hardest to get pics with my Fuji 4900 but to get cars that aren't blurred i have to turn the shutter speed up, which in turn gives me very dark unusable pictures.

I dont have a huge budget (around £300) but there are so many different makes and models i just dont know which body to get????

i will be working indoors in very bad light and will be taking pics of Micro cars going very very fast....

I have been told that Nikon is the way to go and have been looking at the D100, is it good enough for what i want and what sort of lense do i have to get to solve the dark image problem i was having with my old camera?

any help is very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance

[josh_smaxx]

First off, i dont know the price if a D100 but your budget seems low for a DSLR with a good lense. I would reccommend the fuji S6500 (not slr) which i use and i find it a fantastic camera, very adjustable, no dark pictures (providing you know how to set it up properly) and fairly compact (but not a credit card camera by all means, still looks the buisness)



Just and example.

[mole2k]

Taking pictures indoors is a tough you, you ideally need very good noise control. Nikon cameras tend to lack behind Canon cameras in that respect.

One problem is you need a camera that has good noise control and high iso's ( = expensive) and you also would need fast lenses to get high shutter speeds to help stop blurry shots ( = expensive).

For that budget you might be able to see about picking up a 2nd hand canon 350d and a cheap telephoto, as long as the light isnt too bad you should be able to get reasonable pictures once you do a bit of photoshop work to reduce the noise.

The problem with a non-dslr in this situation is that you really need the low noise at high iso's that the larger sensors in dslr's give you.

Here is a few that I've taken indoors with a canon 20D and a 70-300 f4~f5.6, these where all manually focused as you dont have a chance with autofocus working quick enough indoors on the lower end cameras and lenses so i usually manually focus the entire time.

[evilbert]

I appreciate that i would defiinately be looking at a second hand camera and i really do need to go with a DSLR as i have used a friends fuji s5600 with similar problems to my 4900 so i really want to spend as much as possible and get a camera that i can upgrade (lenses) when more funds come in.

I have been looking on e-bay and the Nikons go for around the £200-£250 mark for the bodies.

What is the difference between Nikon's and Canon's or are they similar cameras with different badges? and how would the 350d compare to say the D100 or even a D70?

[mole2k]

Image quality wise generally they are about the same, the nikons tend to be nicer to use ergonomics wise but the canons generally have better noise at higher iso's. Those shots of my above where shot at iso3200.

When buying a dslr you really are buying into a system so its always best to look towards what you could upgrade to in the future. Both nikon and camera systems are very similar and you wont go far wrong with either.

[Halcalanky]

Canon sell some very cheap lenses new (£125 for a 55-200mm zoom) - not the best optically, but passable. I prefer canon to Nikon, but if you're going to buy a second hand "kit" with a lens that came with the kit, the Nikon comes with a better starter lens. Canon's range of lenses is better and better optically (in my opinion).

Canon customer service is also very good in my experience.

[Molgorain]

Focus more on a good a lens, then the body. Im not sure about Canon, but Nikon have been using the same type of lens-"connection", for a long time. So I can use my friends old lenses with my D70.

Like Vintage wrote, check out Ken Rockwell, he got some really good advices for a buyer. You should be able to find a cheap secondhand D70, on the market. Lot of people switched their D70 for the new D80, when it came, atleast in Sweden.

Otherwise go for the D40 kit, don´t be scared for the "only" 6 megapixel thing.
Its only a psychological(sp?) effect, Ken has a great article about this.

Got a Nikon D70 privately, and use a Canon 350D and 400D at work. Nothing wrong with the Canon, except the weight. Its too light for me, so it feels very plastic, but thats IMHO.

[maverick]

A couple of people have hit the nail on the head, and a few other recommendations I'm a little weary of.

- AGREE: Nikon vs Canon DSLR's is a personaly thing, and as mentioned the NIkon has the usability, but the Canon does beat them on having less noise and slightly more vibrant colour. This is a FACT shown in many magazine tests.

- NIKON D40x isn't all that so don't be fooled. Basically it replaced the D50 and is Nikons lightest DSLR to date, but users complain that it lacks ergonomic feel and weight balance when using. It has some nice advantages over the D50 but has some SERIOUS CUTBACKS. I'd get a D70 or D50 anyday of the week. If you can get a D70 cheap you're quids in. THe D70 has FULL spec VERY similar to the D80 once flashed with latest firmware.

- You should NEVER be shooting at high ISO, so who cares about anything will ISO over 800. Use a decent flash. I use Metz hammerhead CL1 and CL4 etc which can be had off ebay for around £50 instead of these people paying £200 on SB this and that's, plus hammerhead gives you a wicked grip to hold the camera by during shooting sessions.

- BE CAREFULL buying a 18-55mm and a seperate 55-200mm, as it's a stupid thing to do as you'll constantly find yourself swapping them. Just buy a 18mm-200mm cheap lens like a sigma for £100. HOWEVER I don't agree with superzoom lenses as you should always try to use a fixed lens like a 50mm.

My advice overall:

1.) Either get a Canon (350 or 400) or Nikon (D70 or D50). Remember you can only use their lenses etc so if you have a mate with canon stuff that can often be nice to borow lenses. I have a D50 and D70, but the Canons picture quality is better.

2.) If you want a cheap flash, get a metz CL1 or CL4 for £35-40. NOT the CT1.

3.) If you're just starting out get something like a sigma 18mm-200mm second hand so later you can sell for what you paid for it. I f you get a NIKON, the NIKKOR lenses are wicked.

MY RECOMMENDATION: Nikon D70 with a 18-70mm NIKKOR Lens (not 18mm-55mm). It's my setup of choice, or get a Canon with similar lens.

[jimmy]

I can't say i've studied many magazine tests nor used many canons (apart from my 1dmk2) but my personal experience is a little different. I love my Nikons because of their strong vibrant colours straight out of the camera.

The High iso thing is personal preference also - when eventually 1600 iso is as smooth and vibrant as 100iso, will you say the same thing? Indoors I will regularly shoot 1600iso as it's the only way to get the shot I want. Sure you can use flash but it's a totally different look and sadly not always possible when you have drivers or refs complaining..
Good high ISO noise performance is one of the best things about modern digital SLRs - it makes it possible to get shots that previously only super fast and expensive glass would allow.

as a disclaimer, I only photograph rc cars generally and only use a 'medium' quality jpeg - so perhaps I'm not the fussiest guy alive.

[JCJC]

We tend to crop our snaps down lots, compare



and





ISO turned up to 800 allows 2000sec at f5.6, before crop 3888x2592 after 673x449. I know this is extrem but I would rather start with 10m pixels than crop from 6.
We use a canon 400d mostly with the "cheap" 55-200zoom.

And as you can see, we aint too fussy either......

[VintageRacer]

Originally Posted by JCJC

We tend to crop our snaps down lots, before crop 3888x2592 after 673x449.

Otherwise known as digital zoom and in this case more pixels you start with the better, agreed, but...

This is just fine for web and screen viewing, but would be useless for printing. I guess the OP needs to decide what the end purpose is most of the time.

[VintageRacer]

"- NIKON D40x isn't all that so don't be fooled. Basically it replaced the D50 and is Nikons lightest DSLR to date, but users complain that it lacks ergonomic feel and weight balance when using. It has some nice advantages over the D50 but has some SERIOUS CUTBACKS. I'd get a D70 or D50 anyday of the week. If you can get a D70 cheap you're quids in. THe D70 has FULL spec VERY similar to the D80 once flashed with latest firmware."

One of the things I like about the D40 is it's size and light weight.
What are the serious cutbacks missing the D50/D70 have? I can't see anything that someone buying their first digital SLR would SERIOUSLY miss.

To clarify my recommendation, it was assuming buying new. Nothing else new would come anywhere near the OP's budget.

I think Jimmy is right about the flash too, I can't see too many drivers being happy about it.

[jimmy]

The one drawback with the D40/X is the lack of lens motor - so it will only accept newer AFS lenses. You can surely get by, but it rules out a whole load of great lenses that could have been used - like the cheap 50mm F1.8 to the latest 10.8 fisheye and the fantastic value 80-200 F2.8 AFD.

If you don't want to get too into it, the D40 is fine - but the lack of lens motor limits the lens choices when you want to start upgrading your kit

[josh_smaxx]

Originally Posted by evilbert

DSLR

[lazerboy]

canon's got those. but some are very ugly.
like this:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=10598
i don't like the bulge at the bottom.

[josh_smaxx]

Originally Posted by lazerboy

canon's got those. but some are very ugly.
like this:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=10598
i don't like the bulge at the bottom.

Ye.... the buldge at the bottom is the battery, and the 1D is around £1600 IIRC in this country, could be wrong though.

[mole2k]

The bulge at the bottom as well as for a battery is so you can hold the camera sideways and shoot portrait shots, it has an extra set of controls there so the camera can be operated at that orientation.

Films ok but I couldnt afford the cost of shooting it all the time, at least not without setting up my own darkroom. I had costed this out when I was looking to get my 20D, I had considered getting a 1V and a neg scanner but the added cost would of been too much to do event photography.

[telboy]

Tell you what.
When my daughter was born I just had a 35mm snapper. after spending 100's of pounds on films (you do take a lot of photo's when you have children) I decided to spend those 100's of pounds on a digital snapper....RESULT!!
I saved what has to be £1000's in films, developing etc.

and with an SLR, theres nothing worse that going through 3-4 rolls of film, only to realise when they're developed, that somethings not right with the camera. thats £3-6 per film and another £4-10 developing wasted, plus a day taking pictures that you wont get the chance to do again.

I've now had my new Canon 400d/Xti thingy about 2 month and I've already taken well over 3000 photos. Ok a lot of those didn't work out, but that is the beauty of digital. you can just snap away, look at the viewfinder, if it didn't work out, take it again!

At batley the other weekend, I took about 900 pics with around 150-200 being usable. (I am still getting used to it ) Imagine how much that would cost in films!

But I would NEVER go back to film.

I need a 'reasonable' zoom to work with, just to stop me standing REALY close to the track.