Foo - What digital slr?

I know there are some fairly serious photogs on this site and wanted to get their input. Some camera ideas I've kicked around:

-Canon Rebel XTi. Seems like a lot of bang for the buck.
-Nikon D80. Not as much as a deal as the Rebel but seems like it might be better built and has spot metering.
-Nikon D200. More expensive. Magnesium body. Not as good in low light levels (higher film speeds) as the Canons.
-Canon 30D. More expensive. Magnesium body.

Dark horse options:

-Fuji S3. Amazing resolution for a 6 megapixel camera. Detail is just amazing. Pics seem more film like to me and amount of detail in the highlights and shadows is impressive. Takes Nikon lenses which a lot of my friends have (i.e. I can borrow stuff)

-Pentax K10d. Weather proof body. Amazing price. In camera anti-shake and dust control.

One thing I'll probably end up shooting a lot is bands at live performances so frankly the higher film speed quality is important probably.

Anyway - anyone with real world experiences on these feel free to chime in.

None of those are bad. I'm a fan of Pentax and Nikon personally. Just make sure to buy really good lenses. Your pictures are only going to be as good as the glass they are taken through.

Here's some reviews:

Canon Digital Rebel XTi compared to the Nikon D80 (http://www.dcviews.com/reviews/Canon-Rebel-XTi-Nikon-D80/Canon-Rebel-XTi-Nikon-D80-review.htm)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/XTI/XTIA.HTM
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xti

I use a 20D right now and am leaning towards the XTi. I can re-use all my lenses. From the reviews, both the 20D and D80 appear to be identical as far as image-quality goes, so the XTi would be a better value at $200 cheaper. Navigating the controls on the XTi seems more intuitive and natural than the D80. This was actually one of the original reasons I went with the 20D in the first place.

why not a D50.... save a few bucks on the body and invest it in glass... A d50 18-70mm, & 50mm f1.8 is a pretty good set excellent for the low light of clubs and bars etc... from there look at maybe a 55-200mm or something


check out the dpreview.com forums I hang in the nikon one under the same SN

I'm a Nikonian so I'm biased: D80 if on a budget, D200 is you can afford it, D2X if the sky is the limit.

Personally, I have been VERY impressed with the results at ISO 800 (JPG FINE quality) out of the D200. The 18-200mm lens is very good; an excellent travel lens. Nikon's SB-600 or better, SB-800 is excellent.

Personally, I like the ergonomics of Nikon bodies.

Check out:
www.nikonians.org
www.bythom.com (his reviews are very consistant in opinion and criticism and above all, fair!)

Having said the above, what you are buying is a system. Buy what works for you, not the salesman. Feel the camera's ergonomics and see how comfortable it is to hold and how easy/hard it is to flow through the menus.

What do you want to shoot?
How often?
Do you plan on riding with it? (Get the right bag)

Canon and Nikon both produce some great cameras and great technology.

For all things Nikon related, check out Nikonians.org - a great user resource!

I use and love my 30D. I took this with it:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/251290137_d1e8bcac74.jpg

Full size image here:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/251290137_d1e8bcac74_o.jpg

Why do you need a DSLR? You don't. If you come to bikeforums.net to learn about cameras
You are not in need of a DSLR. Truth.

Buy yourself a nice prosumer digital camera with fixed lens, 10x optical zoom and manual controls. Shoot Raw with a 1GB card

Put the $500+ you just saved into the bank.

Why do you need a DSLR? You don't. If you come to bikeforums.net to learn about cameras
You are not in need of a DSLR. Truth.

Buy yourself a nice prosumer digital camera with fixed lens, 10x optical zoom and manual controls. Shoot Raw with a 1GB card

Put the $500+ you just saved into the bank.

Um, no. DSLR's are a totally different beast than fixed-lens cameras and who's to say that just because you ask a camera qustion on bikeforums, you don't deserve one? The OP could have (and probably has) already done some research beforehand and just decided to ask us for opinions. Sure, lots of people don't need one, but if you want to be able to swap lenses (which is not rocket science reserved for the photographically elite), then yes, you do want one. And if you have the money, why not? You could have said, "Are you sure you need a DSLR?" instead of omnisciently prescribing a solution.

Sheesh. This is foo. Relax. Let people do what they want.

The Nikon D200. I used the F100 for years and the D200 has the same capabilities and programability. Get a large storage card and you can fire away all day.

Do you have a current lens requirement? I chose the Nikon because I already had several Nikon lenses.

Um, no. DSLR's are a totally different beast than fixed-lens cameras and who's to say that just because you ask a camera qustion on bikeforums, you don't deserve one? The OP could have (and probably has) already done some research beforehand and just decided to ask us for opinions. Sure, lots of people don't need one, but if you want to be able to swap lenses (which is not rocket science reserved for the photographically elite), then yes, you do want one. And if you have the money, why not? You could have said, "Are you sure you need a DSLR?" instead of omnisciently prescribing a solution.

Sheesh. This is foo. Relax. Let people do what they want.


Probably going to take band photos a lot, he says.
Sorry, man. This could very well be the 1 person who is planning on shooting band photos a lot that will actually get into photography deep enough to know what the hell everything the professional camera offers does. My bad. Lots of people -and dentists- buy lots of cool things thinking it's the cool new things that make you something. If you're just starting out in photography you don't need the top dollar stuff. It's a waste. It's debt inducing. If you want the best stuff available from the start because you just -know- that you'll be staying with it for the long haul
You go big.
You don't ask for best bang for the buck advice ..and certainly not in a site full of cyclists no matter how many shutter clickers there are in it. There are many photography sites with forums out there than can be found just as easily as this one.
I don't think that's very smart
No soon to be master photographer/enthusiast anything will short themselves. Lenses -as previously brought up- is far more important to discuss for serious photography. Not even mentioned by OP.
This all makes me believe that this is a status symbol purchase ..just like the many others wanting to take band photos and even more better profile self-pics.
Honestly
I don't know why anyone not deeply interested in photography would want to switch lenses out. The prosumer cameras yield great images in one compact lens. Many do very well at higher ISO settings. They've advanced greatly in just the past couple years and even then they were pretty darn good.
So yeah
I was harsh. Maybe I am 100% wrong. If I am I will admit it.
Otherwise I could have made a difference in his life -Not just in his camera choice
He might just go and dig a bit deeper now. He may not spend $1000-1500 on a camera he'll use infrequently
But buy a great camera for less than half that price and grow with it. I may have just kept him from overspending his life away
Who knows? But I won't just let someone do what they want when I've seen enough people that -on paper- are just like him
and have already made the very decision he wants to
..in the end that choice having been a bad one

I use and love my 30D. I took this with it:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/251290137_d1e8bcac74.jpg

Full size image here:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/251290137_d1e8bcac74_o.jpg

That's actually more a function of your lens than anything.

Personally I like nikon because I have nikon hardware and I like the feel of nikon better. The lower end canon dslr's all felt flimsy to me. My d200 and d70's never done me wrong but also remember, the lens matters much more. If you can, get a cheaper camera and spend your money on the lens.

If you can, get a cheaper camera and spend your money on the lens.

that's why I vote d50

My wife is a photographer (amature but good non the less)
of the ones you listed she said the D80 is the best bang for the buck
but for the average user who wants a DSLR but does not *need* one you could step down to the D50 and save some bank

me, I haven't snapped a picture with a camera in 5 or 6 years so I can't comment for myself

Sorry, man. This could very well be the 1 person who is planning on shooting band photos a lot that will actually get into photography deep enough to know what the hell everything the professional camera offers does. My bad. Lots of people -and dentists- buy lots of cool things thinking it's the cool new things that make you something. If you're just starting out in photography you don't need the top dollar stuff. It's a waste.

From what I've heard, very few pros really consider the Rebel XTi or the D80 professional cameras. Medium to high end hobbyists, yes, but most seem to feel they're inadequate for professional needs.

I should let ravenmore speak for himself, but it doesn't sound like he's just starting out in photography. Maybe just starting to get serious about it, in which case, I would think entry level dSLR is a great way to go. Get familiar with manual controls and lighting without dropping a fortune. Get a good camera he can add lenses to or upgrade if he gets serious or just take everyday great pictures otherwise.

That said, I'm probably at a similar level: considering moving up from P&S to SLR. I've looked at the prosumer models, and haven't been particularly impressed with the lighting and focus control they offer compared to what I've seen from SLR's. In light of your post, I think I probably haven't been giving prosumer cameras enough consideration, but at the same time, the added options really appeal to me.

Anyway, not to argue against the logic of experienced photographers here. I just wanted to chime in with the perspective of people on the other side of casual/enthusiast fence. I'm picking up some useful opinions here.

I'm a Canon fan, and my Digital XT took a fall from a trunk bag at about 20 MPH with only scuff damage. I went Canon mostly because I already had some lenses. My uncle is more serious about his photography and has Nikon, not sure what model but he spent at least 5X what I did on the body. Knowing him as I do, I believe he did a lot of research before buying.

In any case, anyone that suggests that a P&S can take the place of a DSLR doesn't hope to ever be a photographer. A good P&S is great for family photos and candid shots, but will never measure up to an SLR, digital or otherwise.

My last thoughts...shooting bands at performances? Spend a little on body, a little on a damn good flash, and a little on good glass.

I have a Nikon D70 and really like it. This is the first photo I took with it.

http://www.pbase.com/billd9/image/35068053.jpg


It's also a decent waterfall camera.

http://www.pbase.com/billd9/image/43995558.jpg

I am probably somewhat predjudiced in favor of Nikon SLR's as I have had several over the years. My first was a Nikon F in 1965. I do have a small Canon A620 that I bought just to carry on the bike and it does an excellent job... just not as versatile as a SLR.

Probably going to take band photos a lot, he says.
Sorry, man. This could very well be the 1 person who is planning on shooting band photos a lot that will actually get into photography deep enough to know what the hell everything the professional camera offers does. My bad. Lots of people -and dentists- buy lots of cool things thinking it's the cool new things that make you something. If you're just starting out in photography you don't need the top dollar stuff. It's a waste. It's debt inducing. If you want the best stuff available from the start because you just -know- that you'll be staying with it for the long haul
You go big.
You don't ask for best bang for the buck advice ..and certainly not in a site full of cyclists no matter how many shutter clickers there are in it. There are many photography sites with forums out there than can be found just as easily as this one.
I don't think that's very smart
No soon to be master photographer/enthusiast anything will short themselves. Lenses -as previously brought up- is far more important to discuss for serious photography. Not even mentioned by OP.
This all makes me believe that this is a status symbol purchase ..just like the many others wanting to take band photos and even more better profile self-pics.
Honestly
I don't know why anyone not deeply interested in photography would want to switch lenses out. The prosumer cameras yield great images in one compact lens. Many do very well at higher ISO settings. They've advanced greatly in just the past couple years and even then they were pretty darn good.
So yeah
I was harsh. Maybe I am 100% wrong. If I am I will admit it.
Otherwise I could have made a difference in his life -Not just in his camera choice
He might just go and dig a bit deeper now. He may not spend $1000-1500 on a camera he'll use infrequently
But buy a great camera for less than half that price and grow with it. I may have just kept him from overspending his life away
Who knows? But I won't just let someone do what they want when I've seen enough people that -on paper- are just like him
and have already made the very decision he wants to
..in the end that choice having been a bad one

Dude - I actually have a degree in photography. Well, technically my degree is in Art but I specialized in photography. I shot as a photographer for a couple of years out of school mainly doing portfolios for aspiring models and actors. I also worked as a photo assistant. This was all on FILM cameras, Canon EOS stuff (loved my 630's). I liked prime glass mainly. My favorite lens was my 100mm f2.0. I got out of photography as a career and fell into IT. I recently fell into shooting bands. I've done a cd cover, and Dean Guitars has some of my work on Meagan Tubbs up on their site.

Here's some stuff out of my portfolio:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/ravenmore/portfolio/pedal-sepia.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/ravenmore/portfolio/kitt-closecrop1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/ravenmore/portfolio/shadow500x600.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/ravenmore/portfolio/eye300x600.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/ravenmore/portfolio/black_berrettblurr400x600.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/ravenmore/portfolio/megan%20tubb/Picture370.jpg

sorry for the random sizes and what not. just grabbed some photos real quick to make my point. The shot of Meagan is a bit over exposed too. Need to re-edit that.

There are a lot of photogs here in FOO I've noticed that are used to working with more current equipment. I wanted to get their opinions on the current gear is all.

I agree - the lens is the most important factor. Panasonic has a camera right now that looks very intersting (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=016&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=260077949631&rd=1&rd=1) (link to ebay ad for an example) because of the kit lens. The kit lens on the Rebel leaves a lot to be desired I think. The D80's kit lens has a bit of weird "w" shaped barrel distortion at the wide angle end but is a nice lens otherwise from what I hear.

All you listed are excellent cameras. Go to a good camera shop and get the Canon and Nikon that you can afford into your hands. I bought the Nikon, a lot based on ergonomics and not having to dig down into the Canon menu system to do what I wanted to do with the camera. The D50, D80, and D200 are excellent cameras, and the D2X even better but very pricey. The Canon is indeed better at higher ISO / lower light situations. All of them take excellent pictures. But really the best pictures come only with good glass. The lenses are absolutely key, if you ever want to blow anything up especially. I've always been a fan of Nikon glass, so it wasn't too hard a choice for me.

Good luck.

I currently only own a Canon A630 point and shoot. Believe it or not, I've done some work I've gotten paid for on it. I felt like an idiot showing up to the shoot with it though. The band (this was the cd cover I mentioned) looked at me a bit dubiously too, but were really pleased when they saw the final results.

Having said that, digital slr's have a lot of advantages. For one they use a different type/better sensor than comes in the point and shoot cameras. They flat out produce better images - specifically at higher ASA's/film speed settings. I shoot band with available light only (usually in B&W), hence the need for a camera that works better at higher film speeds. Also you can work with RAW images usually with a DSLR which gives you a lot more options from what I understand.

In any case, anyone that suggests that a P&S can take the place of a DSLR doesn't hope to ever be a photographer. A good P&S is great for family photos and candid shots, but will never measure up to an SLR, digital or otherwise.

My last thoughts...shooting bands at performances? Spend a little on body, a little on a damn good flash, and a little on good glass.

Prosumer types are not P&S cameras, though. And lets not forget that what makes a photographer is not the camera or lens but the skill of the person behind whatever lens he has in his hands ..if there is even a lens at all


I wouldn't go with flash photography. Fast lens and ISO is all you need.

sorry for the random sizes and what not. just grabbed some photos real quick to make my point. The shot of Meagan is a bit over exposed too. Need to re-edit that.

There are a lot of photogs here in FOO I've noticed that are used to working with more current equipment. I wanted to get their opinions on the current gear is all.

I agree - the lens is the most important factor. Panasonic has a camera right now that looks very intersting (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=016&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=260077949631&rd=1&rd=1) (link to ebay ad for an example) because of the kit lens. The kit lens on the Rebel leaves a lot to be desired I think. The D80's kit lens has a bit of weird "w" shaped barrel distortion at the wide angle end but is a nice lens otherwise from what I hear.


FINE, DUDE
I AM WRONG. lol
I'm not going to critique your photographs
I can see that you perhaps have more of an interest than would have been expected given the basic info you presented in the OPost
But still, For one with a degree in art and more than a fleeting interest in photography
It leaves me wondering why you would need our advice. I wouldn't worry about some distortion if you are looking at kit lenses
You don't buy kit lenses/zooms -especially the basic/cheap ones- if you're looking for spectacular optics, you know?
Buy a 50mm to go with whatever you get. Use the 50
Don't get caught up in "current gear" ..there will always be new gear in the digital world cause those people have to sell new gear to keep themselves afloat. Get a nice lens with whatever body you decide on and don't look back. Only those making money need to worry about such things .. if they desire to do so

Just wanted to get real world experiences from folks that had already used this stuff a lot, and use it like I'll probably use it.

As of now, I'm leaning towards the Canon XTi for sheer bang for the buck. The kit price isn't too much more than the price of the body only, on all of the choices not just Canon, so that's why I'm considering the quality of the kit lens in my choice making. Might as well consider the best glass that comes with it (The Panasonic I posted hands down has the best kit lens btw. That is a spectacular piece of glass and it reminds me of the M series Leicas that I always had a soft spot for.) The spot metering and more robust build of the 30d doesn't quite justify the price premium of about $400-$500. Thats the price of a good lens.

When I bought a DSLR almost 18 months ago, I went with a Canon 20D. At the time, Canon had more DSLR choices than Nikon, and the 20D was the latest and greatest affordable DSLR. Since photography is a hobby for me, not how I earn my money, I weight the cost-benefit ratio for every purchase. I have a number of Sigma EX lenses, and have not yet succumbed to the seduction of Canon 'L' glass.

Based on my friends with both brands, and the reviews I have read, I think you cannot go wrong with either Canon or Nikon. If you buy any other brand, you may be locked into glass only from that manufacturer, since many of the third party lens makers only make Canon, Nikon or sometimes Pentax mounts.

Gee, thanks slvoid. Here I was thinking I had something to do with framing, composition, light levels, and post processing of the RAW format. Thanks for setting me straight.


That's actually more a function of your lens than anything.

Personally I like nikon because I have nikon hardware and I like the feel of nikon better. The lower end canon dslr's all felt flimsy to me. My d200 and d70's never done me wrong but also remember, the lens matters much more. If you can, get a cheaper camera and spend your money on the lens.

Canon.

They are leading the marchin in the DSLR catagory IMO. Everyone else is playing catch up.

Still using my aging 10D

-D

Well - too bad about the Panasonic. The one negative all the reviews I found on it said was that it had problems with noise levels at high film speeds. They said it could be mitigated by shooting RAW and using another program to process it, but still. The lens on that thing is bad to the bone though. Leica glass is on a whole other level than anything Japanese made (not to slight Canon or Nikon, but Leica, Zeiss, Schneider, ect... have always been a notch up). In the old days I'd expect to pay $1500 for a Leica zoom w/a 2.8 to 3.5 max. aperature (heck, that'd be cheap actually). To get the lens(w/image stabilization no less) and camera for that is a great deal.

Just ordered the Nikon D80. Found a deal on ebay for a "salesman sample". I was nervous about that but it was such a good deal, the seller had an excellent feedback rating, and it comes with a 1 year warranty. Should be here next Wen.. Wooohoo!

We expect to see lots of test shots when you get it in. Sounds like you got a good deal. I bought my last Digital Camera online, though not through ebay.

Oh trust me, I'll probably be driving you guys nuts with "test shots" :) . Yeah - got the camera and two Nikon lenses for $1029. I also picked up the battery grip from the same folks new for $129. With shipping I think it came to $1191 for everything. The lenses are the "kit" lenses so they're not the greatest, but they're not horrible either. The 18-55 actually has ED glass in it and is sharp and contrasty. The only negative is the barrel distortion at its widest setting. Much better than the Canon kit lens. I'll probably save up my pennies and get the Nikon 18-200 at some point.