Foo - OT: Canon XSi or 30D for newbie

I wanna get a DSLR. I'm upgrading from my point and shoot so I know very little about photography.

What do you think would be better for a n00b? The Digital Rebel XSi or Canon 30D??

I've spent hours reading reviews, and would probably have to go to the store and molest both of them before I can form a better opinion, but was just wondering what ya'll thought.

Thanks!

Now, you might wonder why I'm posting this in this forum, well, that's because I figure there are more photographers in here than the other forums.

Things I like about each:

XSi:
Rebel is smaller. Means I might want to carry it with me more.
Slightly cheaper.
Newer, slightly better features like sensor cleaning, Digic III. (not a big deal in my book)

30D:
Heard the build is better. Feels more quality.
"Easier to use." (with the scroll wheel and all, and less menus to go through)(very important to me if it is actually true)
Better pentaprism viewfinder.
3200 ISO

Also, I probably would not "just get the cheaper one and a better lens", since I know nothing about lenses right now. I'll wait to upgrade the lens after I shoot a little and learn what I don't like and what I'd like in a new lens.

get the xsi body only and invest in a better lens, the kit lens is ok for getting started but save up for something better.

i shoot canon so i'll say the XTi. no reason to get the NEWEST camera. you'll save a lot by getting "last year's model". shoot, get the XT and use the rest of the money on a NICE lens. after all, it's teh glass, not the body

get a pentax. you'll get more features and better construction for less.

besides, neither the xti or 30d are designed as complete cameras. canon's design policy is to undermine every model just enough that you'd be driven to upgrade to the next model. thats not to say that it isn't a good camera, but before you know it you'll be trapped in a circle of dangerous advertising.

if you really know what you're doing then yeah, go for an xti or a pentax, something you can really use 100%. if you need a really awesome point and shoot which also happens to be a dslr then get a d40/50.

otherwise there are plenty of fixed lens digital cameras that will serve your needs just as well because unless you plan on making prints - the only thing you're really getting is focus speed. images for the internet more or less top off at 3mpx. anything beyond that is wasted data.

(edit: read my lsat edit at the bottom before the WOT, i thought you were talking about a canonXSi and the nikon D40[even though you said 30] )

i havent shot both brands dslrs, but ive been looking into buying a dslr for over a year now. with all the reviews, samples, and side by side statistics, i'd say go for the nikon. have you been to dpreview dot com?

why are there 2 people that said canon, and one say pentax, yet nikon has 3 votes and canon has zero? lol

i like nikkor lenses better than canon equivalents as well. (again, only from samples, reviews, and statistics, and in this cases, prices).

i recently owned a canon S2 IS, and had every intention of buying a rebel before i began delving into reviews for these two cameras. i would loveeeeee a D300, but i think i should get more familiar with dslr and buy the d40 instead.


EDIT: oh wow. eff it. i just realized as i typed that last "d40" what this poll was really about. snap. what a waste of time and typing XD lol

well then, let me take this time to tell you to consider a nikon.

if you're dead set on a canon, then so be it. what's your reason for picking it?

if you're not 100% positive you want a canon, consider a nikon ;D

i can get you some links if you're at all interested.

BUT i'd say the rebel before the 30D if it's your first slr if you're getting a canon

-_-

get the xsi body only and invest in a better lens, the kit lens is ok for getting started but save up for something better.

I heard the newer 18-55 IS lens was much improved over the older lenses that came with the kits. I really don't know much about lenses right now so I think buying a "good" lens right now isn't necessary.

I personally have a nikon d70s, and my friend is looking for a dslr just to get into digital and doesnt want to break the bank, im recommending either a pentax or one of the new olympus cameras. I dont particularly like canon's layout of buttons or menu's. So I vote nikon, pentax or olympus, just get a good lens.

dont bother. once they've been lured in by canon they're usually never released.

that is of course till a camera like the d3 shows up and lays waste to canon supporters. i can't even begin to imagine the tears and sadness of 1ds owners when the d3x comes out.

i say pentax because as a 'third party' they have to try a lot harder to maintain their market share. they've offered super-bright viewfinders, enhanced waterproofing, in camera vibration reduction, and dust removal features in a 10mpx body for the same price as canon's rebel. you're getting a lot of bang for you buck.

don't be fooled into thinking that one company's glass is really any better than the others. all of these companys have been in the game for a long time. where you really see the good features are in operating system, build, and speed. none of which is worth investing in until you get up to the pro-amateur level (5d, d300/200).

now as a person who makes his living via photography it hurts to see a bunch of old men and gadget junkies with serious imaging devices. you don't know how to take advantage of what the power you've got and even if you did the subject matter being photographed would not warrant the expense. that said, we're also in a forum full of toolbags buying pro track frames and doing bunny hops in grocery market parking lots with 'em.

I heard the newer 18-55 IS lens was much improved over the older lenses that came with the kits. I really don't know much about lenses right now so I think buying a "good" lens right now isn't necessary.

no no no no nono no no. ITS ALWAYS ABOUT THE GLASS. cameras come and go but a good lens stays forever. foreverrrr. buying a decent camera then sticking a junky kit lens on it is like (continuing with the bike analogies) sticking 27" machine-made wheels on your njs track bike. it's stooooopid.

I personally have a nikon d70s, and my friend is looking for a dslr just to get into digital and doesnt want to break the bank, im recommending either a pentax or one of the new olympus cameras. I dont particularly like canon's layout of buttons or menu's. So I vote nikon, pentax or olympus, just get a good lens.

Thanks. I might go play with some of the other brands in the store. To be honest I have always been a Canon fanboy, having been through maybe 5 Canon cameras in our family.

I think that I would just subconsciously associate Canons with being better quality and I'd be most "proud" of my new DSLR if it were Canon. If I got a Nikon or something, I'd view it as an adopted child or something.

I agree with doomkin on about everything he says. What are you gonna be taking pictures of, do you really wanna drop the serious dough on a dslr just to take snapshots? Or are you gonna be a serious photographer? If you want a camera just to take around in your bag and take good pictures get a canon G9 or a nikon p5100 or something like that.

no no no no nono no no. ITS ALWAYS ABOUT THE GLASS. cameras come and go but a good lens stays forever. foreverrrr. buying a decent camera then sticking a junky kit lens on it is like (continuing with the bike analogies) sticking 27" machine-made wheels on your njs track bike. it's stooooopid.

Ya, but, its like I'm a kid who just learned how to ride a bike. Yesterday. I've never ridden fixed before. Should I buy a complete Iro or should I buy everything separately (lets say Kilo TT frame, Arrospoke', Sugino 75's, etc.)? I should probably get the complete bike and then after riding for a year or so, after appreciating riding fixed, and evidently learning about how cool the arrospoke is, finally scrounge enough money to buy one and upgrade. If I jumped right into building my own bike w/ the arrospoke, I wouldn't appreciate how cool it was.

(I wouldn't appreciate a nice lens if I just went and bought what others think is a good lens now without evening knowing why it were good)

fixedup: well, I think I would "probably" be interested in getting into photography as a hobby. I wouldn't mind spending 500-800 on something like that. Loan money is meant to be spent. :) I just recently broke the LCD on my point and shoot, though it still takes pictures and downloads. It'll be my ultimate beater, take-everywhere camera. But then I'd like to complement it with a nicer camera I guess, sometimes I wish I had more options. I was considering the Canon G9 but I think I would really feel short changed with that and I'd just be left wanting more. Plus it's not "cheap" either, it's still $400 or so..

However, I most likely would not become semi-pro. It would most likely remain a hobby. There is a chance that I'd just completely get bored with photography and stop, but, I hope that doesn't happen if I buy a DSLR...

Thanks. I might go play with some of the other brands in the store. To be honest I have always been a Canon fanboy, having been through maybe 5 Canon cameras in our family.

I think that I would just subconsciously associate Canons with being better quality and I'd be most "proud" of my new DSLR if it were Canon. If I got a Nikon or something, I'd view it as an adopted child or something.

it's all advertising dude. nikon doesnt need to constantly remind everyone that they have been the only real option for serious photographers for, oh i dont know, about 50 years. nikon F serious cameras are legendary in their longevity, mechanical quality and precision. nikon HAS ALWAYS BEEN SLOW. they do things deliberately with careful planning because when nikon releases a camera, they want that camera to last forever.

nikon has always been a camera company dedicated to serving the photographer. canon has always been about new technology - serving the engineer. canon prefers fewer buttons with more functions and more aeshetics. nikon users are the guys used to hammering tent spikes with their f3s and fingering their shutter speeds into place while laying in mud or snow so they look for cameras that are built hardy, with lots of big buttons with single functions.

canon has been on top the past few years because they play to the market. yeah, it's good business sense, but it's bad for the photographer. (read: canon doesn't care about you) nikon is willing to take a monetary hit in order to produce fewer but consistently better cameras.

ive heard it said that bodies are generally out of date in about 3-5 years. glass lasts 15-20.

edit: if you're not planning on making money with a camera, you need to ask yourself if you need all the lens options. if you're just taking photos for fun and don't need some higher end features, i wouldn't go beyond recommending the canon S5 IS (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons5is/)

Ya, but, its like I'm a kid who just learned how to ride a bike. Yesterday. I've never ridden fixed before. Should I buy a complete Iro or should I buy everything separately (lets say Kilo TT frame, Arrospoke', Sugino 75's, etc.)? I should probably get the complete bike and then after riding for a year or so, after appreciating riding fixed, and evidently learning about how cool the arrospoke is, finally scrounge enough money to buy one and upgrade. If I jumped right into building my own bike w/ the arrospoke, I wouldn't appreciate how cool it was.

(I wouldn't appreciate a nice lens if I just went and bought what others think is a good lens now without evening knowing why it were good)

you're confusing nice with expensive here. the components on a complete bike aren't amazing, but they're strong and will hold true until the day you learn to keep a consistent 120rpm for 20 laps.

consider nikon's basic kit lens, the 18-55/3.5-5.6 vr2. stopped down it is as sharp as any of nikon's other $1500 lenses and with its 2nd generation vibration reduction allows you to shoot as much as 3 stops slower than you normally would be able to without wicked hand shake. the whole thing is the size of a medium tomato and weighs just about as much.

the consider the 17-55/2.8 dx. no vibration reduction, doubles the weight of whatever camera you put it on, is extremely large. yes, you can shoot in low light conditions and yes it's sharp when stopped down, but now you've got a chunky expensive lens you can't conveniently carry around.

ive heard it said that bodies are generally out of date in about 3-5 years. glass lasts 15-20.

depends on what your needs are. if you're taking pictures of the family, printing 4x6s and posting on the web, then you can get by with a 3megapixel camera from 2000 - eight years ago. if you need to be printing billboard sized prints of half naked women fighting with sharks then yeah, you might need that $35000 40megapixel medium format back for your hasselblad.

as for lenses, it's entirely the platform. none of canon's lenses older than 1990ish work with the current bodies and all their first generation AF lenses pale in comparison to the speed of the current models.

nikon's pro level bodies (d300, d3) still take all their legacy from as far back as 1930ish. i've got this sweet 85/1.2 from the 40s with wicked bokeh that i still use all the time.

leica lenses from the turn of the century still work with all their modern cameras, as does pentax's entire catalogue.

as long as you're not a photojournalist or sports photographer, most of your lenses will outlast you if you're okay with taking them to a camera repair shop once a decade.

if you need to be printing billboard sized prints of half naked women fighting with sharks then yeah, you might need that $35000 40megapixel medium format back for your hasselblad.


Betterlight dude, Betterlight.

EDIT:
Ok so for the mentioned situation this won't work. But its still damn cool. And I would probably go Maymia over Hasselblad any way.

I also tend to agree with doomkin. I personally shot Sony/minolta and I am overall happy with my choice (except for the damn noise). Minolta glass is amazing and I have a total of $170 (100mm 2.8 macro and 50mm 1.7) in to lenses not counting the kit.

I haven't look at the Pentax cameras extensively but from what I do know they are pretty nice cameras.

Check out The Photography Forum for lots of info.

I am with doomkin, I shoot Pentax and love the value (plus not having to get in stupid Canon/Nikon arguments all the time). The new K20D is a ton of camera for the price- you need to take a big step up to get some of those featured from Canikon. Then, dig into the vast riches of awesome Pentax glass from the days of old via eBay.

Make sure to look at the lens selection of each camera maker and see if the variety they have is appealing to you. For example, even though I like how nikon bodies feel in my hands, I like canon because they have good normal primes (for 1.5x) at affordable prices. I like how small the olympus E410 is, but Olympus has a really bad selection of primes.

Also, ergonomics are a large factor to you being able to have fun and feel confident with the camera. Do not overlook this, seriously. Sounds like bull, but it isn't. It sucks to use a camera that feels awkward in your hands. DSLRs in the same price bracket are often really similar, and chances are that you probably wont miss or greatly enjoy the differences between them unless you exactly know what you need and want. Just get something that feels good in your hands, has a menu that seems intuitive to you, and doesn't feel too bulky to take around with you, because what's the point of having a nice camera that you hate to take around with you.|

Then again, I don't currently own a DSLR, or a digital camera at all. I have one of these babies (http://www.cameraquest.com/konhex.htm). And until a digital camera can be just as compact, light, fun to use, and still able to produce great results, I do not plan on buying one. Those new Oly 420s with the new 50mm pancake sound nice though.

i would go with the 30d, the xsi is newer beginner camera, but eventually would need to upgrade

if i had a xsi, i would eventually want to upgrade to an 40d or something.

Nikon

unless you NEED some of the features of either of the cameras you'd be best suited with an XT and a nice piece of glass. Personally I have the 20d with a nice 17-40L

Most of the advice in this thread is just opinion, and most of it generally should be taken with a grain of salt.

With that being said, I would suggest going to your local camera shop and holding all the models you are considering. See which one feels right in your hands, and which one has the interface that suits you.

Pentax used to make great cameras and lenses, but I really wouldn't put any amount of money into a camera system that simply prides itself on the lenses of yesteryear. As bad as it sounds, Canon and Nikon are really the only serious choices, and they are the only companies who I would even consider. Canon and Nikon both have their pros and their cons, and really it all boils down to user interface and whether or not you have some lenses from one company or the other. Nikon makes great cameras, and so does Canon. Canon makes incredibly good lenses, much better lenses than Nikon, but Nikon has the universal F mount, and they make lenses of compirable quality.

It is important to understand that you should be more concerned with lens choice. If you don't know what type of lenses you would want to get, then maybe you shouldn't be looking at DSLR's. Chances are, your point and shoot will actually suffice for quite a long time, so maybe you should reconsider your choice.

Personally, if I were in your shoes, I would buy a used 20D and buy the 17-40L. The 20D would probably even be an overkill for what you are doing. You really could probably get away with an old 300D, even. A 20D or even something lower quality, coupled with the 17-40L or any other L series lens would produce images that would be of excellent quality, and if you decide later that photography isn't your thing, you could always sell off the lens for pretty close to what you bought it for.

You've already picked your manufacturer, and that's fine. You've picked the right one ;)

If i were you, and knew absolutely nothing about photography the features of a higher-end body are going to be completely lost on you. Ergonomics plays a role in what body you should get, so you really should go down to your LPS and handle them in person.

In your situation, I would buy a used XTi and a decent "normal zoom" lens (Canon 17-55 IS, Sigma 17-70, Sigma 18-50 EX Macro, Tamron 17-50 etc). Learn what you're doing and you'll eventually want to upgrade anyway. Your XTi can become your backup body when you upgrade to a 5D.

what you absolutely SHOULDN'T do now is waste your money on a fancy-ass body and a crappy lens. Good glass is what makes good pictures (well, good light and a good eye makes good pictures - but good glass really helps).

You've already picked your manufacturer, and that's fine. You've picked the right one ;)

If i were you, and knew absolutely nothing about photography the features of a higher-end body are going to be completely lost on you. Ergonomics plays a role in what body you should get, so you really should go down to your LPS and handle them in person.

In your situation, I would buy a used XTi and a decent "normal zoom" lens (Canon 17-55 IS, Sigma 17-70, Sigma 18-50 EX Macro, Tamron 17-50 etc). Learn what you're doing and you'll eventually want to upgrade anyway. Your XTi can become your backup body when you upgrade to a 5D.

what you absolutely SHOULDN'T do now is waste your money on a fancy-ass body and a crappy lens. Good glass is what makes good pictures (well, good light and a good eye makes good pictures - but good glass really helps).


Good advice, listen to this.

I said XSi. The Digic III processor is supposed to be way better in low light. If that doesn't matter to you now, it will when you look at photos full of nasty noise. I also realize that you may not know about lenses, but here's some advice:
-Canon kit lenses generally kind of suck.
-You'll probably be happier with a mid-range Sigma or Tamron lens than with the Canon 18-55 IS.
-Wider apertures are generally to be desired (f/2.8 for zoom lenses).

If you were trying to decide between the XSi and the 40D, I'd probably say 40D for ruggedness, feel and ease of use. Then again, if you're taking it on your bike, you'll appreciate the light weight.

You've already picked your manufacturer, and that's fine. You've picked the right one ;)

If i were you, and knew absolutely nothing about photography the features of a higher-end body are going to be completely lost on you. Ergonomics plays a role in what body you should get, so you really should go down to your LPS and handle them in person.

In your situation, I would buy a used XTi and a decent "normal zoom" lens (Canon 17-55 IS, Sigma 17-70, Sigma 18-50 EX Macro, Tamron 17-50 etc). Learn what you're doing and you'll eventually want to upgrade anyway. Your XTi can become your backup body when you upgrade to a 5D.

what you absolutely SHOULDN'T do now is waste your money on a fancy-ass body and a crappy lens. Good glass is what makes good pictures (well, good light and a good eye makes good pictures - but good glass really helps).
Another vote for this excellent advice.

I have had the Digital Rebel, Rebel XT, Rebel XTi, 20d, and now the 30d. I feel I am well versed in what the shortfalls are of each of the bodies.

The XSi is a nice machine to be sure, but the ergonomics was always an issue. The XTi/XSi user interface is great IMHO and actually prefer it to my 30d. You can get 30d's gently used for ~$650 which is a steal for what you get.

The AF on the 30d/XTi are the same. The XSi and the 40d have a new AF sensor but there have been reorts of 40d's that are not focusing correctly.

The real benefits of the XSi is the sensor clean feature, the DIGICIII, the 3" LCD, and the 12MP sensor (which is really a marketing feature if you ask me).
The + of the 30d is: the Ergonomics, brighter viewfinder (which makes framing shots easier), 6FPS vs 3.5 for the XSi, High ISO performance and the ability to shoot at 3200 ISO, 1/3 stop ISO selection, and a very usefull joystick which lets you select your AF point much easier than scrolling with the index finger wheel.

What is more important to you is really, up to you.

I do agree glass is king. I have a 24-105 F4L, 70-200 2.8L, Canon 1.4x II extender, and the 10-22 ef-s lenses and each of these pieces of glass is far more important than the body I shoot with. I could produce better images with a 6 year old 10d and L-glass over the 40d and the kit lens any day . Kit lenses are a waste of money. I would go to Fred Mirenda Forums and cruise their buy sell forums. Those guys are serious shooters and are a vast of knowledge.

The more important question, is what lens do you buy..... and the answer to that is even more complicated than the first question you asked.

It really is all about the lenses, and of course if you screw your photos up in editing. I have an older nikon d70s (6.1megapixels) and I have the kit lens, which is actually kinda nice for a kit lens, nicer than the canons kit ( I looked for a long time ) and a nice tokina 28-70 2.8 that I used on my nikon 35mm. My friend has a nikon d80 with some ****ty lenses and he over edits his photos like crazy, I HATE the way his photos look, his camera has 10 megapixels ( 4 more than mine ) and I like the way my photos turn out better, they look more real. Im about to look into buying a new sigma 30mm prime lens for my nikon as I love my old 50mm 1.8 for my old canon. So please just get a good lens, I personally think sigma lenses are good value, and nikon lenses are good also. Try looking through the cameras menu's and the button layout, which one is easier to use, i personally found nikon was easier. Look on ebay for something a year or two old, they will be sooo much cheaper than buying new, pro photographers always have to have the best so there will be goood cameras on there for cheap.

If you can afford it and still get some quality lenses, get the better camera (IMO, the 30D. I have a 1D, i'd probably take that any day over any version of Rebel). Ultimately the lenses are more important.

I'd choose the 40D over the XSi, and the XSi over the 30D.

Why?

XSi has 12 megapixels. While it's not that much more, it's enough to save photos if you have to crop a bit extra, XSi (and the 40D) both have Digic III processors -- amazing in low light. The XTi has a Digic II processor which is also very nice.

Lower end Nikons (everything under the D3, iirc) lack the CMOS sensors that Canon has, so they'll also lack the low-light quality that Canon has dominated the market with.

My recommendation: XSi with the body only, a battery grip, and a Sigma 17-70.

Another nice thing about sticking with Canon is that all their menus are extremely similar: from the point and shoots up to the 1DsMkIII. You'll feel right at home with a Canon DSLR.

A good place for Canon advice, and some sales, too, is http://photography-on-the.net. I bought two of my lenses from users there. It's a good place.

Picking a camera because of megapixles is absurd...

megapixels are absurd.

if anyone ever tells you to pick one camera over another because of megapixels, stop listening immediately.

thats like telling you bike A goes faster than bike B.

megapixels are absurd.

if anyone ever tells you to pick one camera over another because of megapixels, stop listening immediately.

thats like telling you bike A goes faster than bike B.

Would you want a slower bike?

Most of the advice in this thread is just opinion, and most of it generally should be taken with a grain of salt.

With that being said, I would suggest going to your local camera shop and holding all the models you are considering. See which one feels right in your hands, and which one has the interface that suits you.

Pentax used to make great cameras and lenses, but I really wouldn't put any amount of money into a camera system that simply prides itself on the lenses of yesteryear. As bad as it sounds, Canon and Nikon are really the only serious choices, and they are the only companies who I would even consider. Canon and Nikon both have their pros and their cons, and really it all boils down to user interface and whether or not you have some lenses from one company or the other. Nikon makes great cameras, and so does Canon. Canon makes incredibly good lenses, much better lenses than Nikon, but Nikon has the universal F mount, and they make lenses of compirable quality.

It is important to understand that you should be more concerned with lens choice. If you don't know what type of lenses you would want to get, then maybe you shouldn't be looking at DSLR's. Chances are, your point and shoot will actually suffice for quite a long time, so maybe you should reconsider your choice.

Personally, if I were in your shoes, I would buy a used 20D and buy the 17-40L. The 20D would probably even be an overkill for what you are doing. You really could probably get away with an old 300D, even. A 20D or even something lower quality, coupled with the 17-40L or any other L series lens would produce images that would be of excellent quality, and if you decide later that photography isn't your thing, you could always sell off the lens for pretty close to what you bought it for.

He's right, Pentax's current lens offerings are complete and utter crap:

http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/product/40mm.lg.jpg

http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/product/DA%2021mm.lg.jpg



There are only two camera companies, and everyone who chooses not to drink the kool-aid is clearly ********. A few counterpoints:

1. It's not the camera. It just isn't. Anyone who tells you camera x or y takes better pictures is lying to you, because cameras don't take pictures. You and I do. My Pentax probably has more processing power than an Apollo spacecraft and more settings than Ansel Adams could shake a stick at, and yet his pictures somehow turned out okay (especially in relation to mine).

2. You aren't a pro. Neither am I. Buying a Canon Rebel XT because "that's what the pros use" is like buying a Trek T1 because "that's what Lance rode." It isn't, and it doesn't matter. If you do decide to take the plunge into professional-level gear, you'll be spending so much on bodies and glass that the $700 you spent on your first camera kit will be pennies to you. You won't be using that 18-55 kit lens on your D3 anyhow. And if you do buy nice glass and end up switching systems, you can always eBay it. Good lenses hold value if you take care of them.

3. You are unique. There's a reason not all cyclists ride Treks or Specializeds or Giants. Every cyclist is different just like every photographer is different. If you don't like using your camera, you won't use it. Every time I pick up a Rebel it feels like it was made for a seven year old or someone with incredibly tiny hands. It isn't comfortable and it feels cheap. For me, this is an issue. For many people, the Rebel feels wonderful and so they use it. There is no perfect entry-level dSLR. If there were, why would people buy anything else?


There's nothing wrong with buying a Canon or a Nikon. Just make sure to do it for the right reasons.

I would recomend the Canon Rebel XTi

Would you want a slower bike?

Wouldn't you rather have stronger legs...

I was a semi-professional shooting weddings and portraits using Nikon film camera's. I decided to stop running that business and when I went to upgrade to digital I decided to change systems to Pentax. I sold all of my fast Nikon lenses and went to Pentax because of,

A, Pentax has Vibration Reduction in the body, not the lens so it works on ANY Pentax lens and let me assure you it is a worthwhile feature.

B, The Lenses. Pentax make a 16-45 mm F4 ED standard lens thats a cracker quality wise and quite cheap for that kind of lens. An equivalent Nikon or Cannon lens is significantly more expensive.

C, just better value for money. My Pentax K10D + Pentax 16-45 mm F4 lens produces superb images and I bought it for a really good price on eBay.

My Pentax gear seriously outperforms my older Nikon gear at a much cheaper price.

Regards, Anthony

Nikon and more so Canon are king in the DSLR world. Therefore, because film cameras are no longer an important section of the market (especially SLR), they are in a sense king in the camera world. For a guy (me) who preaches "glass glass" it hurts me to say this, but this status (for nikon and canon) is mostly a result of their quickness to jump onto the DSLR bandwagon (crap, they built the wagon) but also the fact that their sensors are generally of the best quality image wise/size (it is this reason that Canon has been ahead the entire time as their sensors are . When you couple this with the fact that, especially among pro's, their lenses were already a notch above the (SLR) competition you have the makings of some real market domination. And that is reflected at any newspaper in the country.

The fact that less than a year after Canon released its first marketable DLSR, the 1D, (that is to say that it was the first to take usable photos in a camera of the same ability of its film counterpart in terms of focus speed, shutter speed, and frame rate--almost) they released a more amature model (the D30) and the fact that Nikon took only a year to do the same (D100) signaled that they expected people like our OP to get into buying quality digital SLR cameras.

The problem for companies like Pentax, and Sony, and Kodak is that they haven't pushed hard enough for marketable DSLR's. There is no way they are going to tap into the pro market anytime soon as they are only now getting into the bigger money maker (fortunately for the P&S's are where it's really at).

Lastly, a real problem...their lenses are not as good as Nikon's or Canon's.

As for the internal image stabilization, i can't really comment on it but i don't know if you'll ever see that in Canon or Nikon as they have very good lenses with image stabilization and i know there are benefits to that. For example, a 50mm lens isn't going to need as much as a 400mm...can that internal stabilization system handle bigger glass? (i don't know)


I was a semi-professional shooting weddings and portraits using Nikon film camera's. I decided to stop running that business and when I went to upgrade to digital I decided to change systems to Pentax. I sold all of my fast Nikon lenses and went to Pentax because of,

A, Pentax has Vibration Reduction in the body, not the lens so it works on ANY Pentax lens and let me assure you it is a worthwhile feature.

B, The Lenses. Pentax make a 16-45 mm F4 ED standard lens thats a cracker quality wise and quite cheap for that kind of lens. An equivalent Nikon or Cannon lens is significantly more expensive.

C, just better value for money. My Pentax K10D + Pentax 16-45 mm F4 lens produces superb images and I bought it for a really good price on eBay.

My Pentax gear seriously outperforms my older Nikon gear at a much cheaper price.

Regards, Anthony

Lastly, a real problem...their lenses are not as good as Nikon's or Canon's.



Sorry, I have to disagree here. I've used a lot of different lenses from different makers and different format camera's. I owned a Bronica ETRSi (medium format) outfit for a while and I've used large format camera's as well.

Sure, Nikon and Cannon make some nice glass at the top end, at a price but at the entry level end their lenses can be really quite ordinary. Sure most Pentax camera's are kitted with a rather ordinary Sigma lens which is why I commented on one particular Pentax lens. I bought an old Pentax 50 mm F2 lens for the K10D and it really produces some nice images too. Just as good as any Nikon 50 mm prime lens I've used and when it comes to lenses, a 50 mm prime lens is still the gold standard.

Regards, Anthony

Sorry, I have to disagree here. I've used a lot of different lenses from different makers and different format camera's. I owned a Bronica ETRSi (medium format) outfit for a while and I've used large format camera's as well.

Sure, Nikon and Cannon make some nice glass at the top end, at a price but at the entry level end their lenses can be really quite ordinary. Sure most Pentax camera's are kitted with a rather ordinary Sigma lens which is why I commented on one particular Pentax lens. I bought an old Pentax 50 mm F2 lens for the K10D and it really produces some nice images too. Just as good as any Nikon 50 mm prime lens I've used and when it comes to lenses, a 50 mm prime lens is still the gold standard.

Regards, Anthony

A completely valid point...

However, i don't generally advocate people invest such money into a camera and limit it to entry level lenses for very long...

I would much rather have a $300 used DSLR and a $700 canon L than a $900 camera and a $100 entry-level lens.

As for the internal image stabilization, i can't really comment on it but i don't know if you'll ever see that in Canon or Nikon as they have very good lenses with image stabilization and i know there are benefits to that. For example, a 50mm lens isn't going to need as much as a 400mm...can that internal stabilization system handle bigger glass? (i don't know)

Yes.

Any lens with a chip will communicate its focal length to the lens (even zooms). For older glass, one can simply manually enter the focal length or turn image stabilization off.

You will never see it on a Canon or Nikon because it gives consumers no incentive to spend hundreds of extra dollars for image stabilization each time they buy a lens. Canon needs hundreds of extra dollars of your money to pay for these (http://www.usa.canon.com/html/advertising/adv_cameras.html). I can't say these weren't informative, however, as Canon's products apparently inspired the entire universe (http://www.usa.canon.com/html/advertising/popup/111707_slr_astronomy_sm.html). Impressive indeed.

Cant' disagree with any of that. Though i'd still pick Nikon or Canon over anything else in terms of a DSLR...One of the best marketing ploys out there is one that you can't really buy: A proven track record.

A, Pentax has Vibration Reduction in the body, not the lens so it works on ANY Pentax lens and let me assure you it is a worthwhile feature.

B, The Lenses. Pentax make a 16-45 mm F4 ED standard lens thats a cracker quality wise and quite cheap for that kind of lens. An equivalent Nikon or Cannon lens is significantly more expensive.

C, just better value for money. My Pentax K10D + Pentax 16-45 mm F4 lens produces superb images and I bought it for a really good price on eBay.

My Pentax gear seriously outperforms my older Nikon gear at a much cheaper price.

Regards, Anthony
A: Sounds good at first. However, VR (Image Stabilization in Canon) is more effective in the lens. Dpreview.com has more information on that.

B: I have to disagree with you there. I feel (note: opinion!) that Canon and Nikon's offer higher quality lenses with a much more vast selection to choose from. In addition, Sigma, Tamron, and other 3rd party companies don't make as many, if any, lenses for Pentax.

C: Again, my opinion differs from yours. I feel that Pentax lacks the versatility that my XTi has. However, if it fits what you need, power to you.

Of course your Pentax gear outperforms dated Nikon gear!


1. It's not the camera. It just isn't. Anyone who tells you camera x or y takes better pictures is lying to you, because cameras don't take pictures. You and I do. My Pentax probably has more processing power than an Apollo spacecraft and more settings than Ansel Adams could shake a stick at, and yet his pictures somehow turned out okay (especially in relation to mine).

2. You aren't a pro. Neither am I. Buying a Canon Rebel XT because "that's what the pros use" is like buying a Trek T1 because "that's what Lance rode." It isn't, and it doesn't matter. If you do decide to take the plunge into professional-level gear, you'll be spending so much on bodies and glass that the $700 you spent on your first camera kit will be pennies to you. You won't be using that 18-55 kit lens on your D3 anyhow. And if you do buy nice glass and end up switching systems, you can always eBay it. Good lenses hold value if you take care of them.

3. You are unique. There's a reason not all cyclists ride Treks or Specializeds or Giants. Every cyclist is different just like every photographer is different. If you don't like using your camera, you won't use it. Every time I pick up a Rebel it feels like it was made for a seven year old or someone with incredibly tiny hands. It isn't comfortable and it feels cheap. For me, this is an issue. For many people, the Rebel feels wonderful and so they use it. There is no perfect entry-level dSLR. If there were, why would people buy anything else?


There's nothing wrong with buying a Canon or a Nikon. Just make sure to do it for the right reasons.

1: A Ti-83 has more processing power than the Apollo spacecrafts... The OP stated that he's already used to Canon's menus, so why beat the Pentax horse even more?

2: "The Pro's" use a Canon 5D at the least (40D if you want to push it). I get paid for the occasional gig and print, and I use an XTi...so technically I'm a pro, too. Guess what...Pros use Canon and Nikon because they've been around for a while, they'll continue to be around for a while, and they work well. Leave the horse be!

3: You should try the Rebel with a battery grip. It feels a lot nicer and more robust, imho.

1: A Ti-83 has more processing power than the Apollo spacecrafts... The OP stated that he's already used to Canon's menus, so why beat the Pentax horse even more?

2: "The Pro's" use a Canon 5D at the least (40D if you want to push it). I get paid for the occasional gig and print, and I use an XTi...so technically I'm a pro, too. Guess what...Pros use Canon and Nikon because they've been around for a while, they'll continue to be around for a while, and they work well. Leave the horse be!

3: You should try the Rebel with a battery grip. It feels a lot nicer and more robust, imho.

1. Completely not the point. The point was the camera doesn't take the pictures, you do, and a good photographer will take better pictures with a Holga (http://www.billemory.com/blogimg02/01HolgaFlag.jpg) than a poor photographer with a D3. The argument that any camera produces better pictures on its own ignores the most important part of the equation.

2. I was referring to the original poster, and if you want to get really technical, I've sold a print or two. I think you know what I mean. The point is, just because some hotshot photojournalist has a Canon something-or-other doesn't mean an amateur should buy an entry level Canon, or any other camera. Don't buy something because "that's what all the pros use," buy it because it works for you.

3. Again, completely beside the point, which is that everyone has different preferences and should act accordingly without worrying about what works for other people.


None of this is about Pentax. I often give advice to friends and family members who want a shiny new camera, and my advice is always to keep an open mind and find what works for you. I will tell them I shoot Pentax and tell them why, but I ultimately like to see people get what works best for them. My roommate just passed up a D40 for a Sony after doing a little more research and couldn't be happier. I simply hate to see people ignore a camera that may fit their needs better because of any of the three misconceptions I have now carefully defined twice.

No horse (http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/pawsfurthought/library/WA221_8164481-1-x.jpg), no Pentax (http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/woodsmithstore/heirloom-cradle-kit-LG-748b110.jpg).

2: "The Pro's" use a Canon 5D at the least (40D if you want to push it). I get paid for the occasional gig and print, and I use an XTi...so technically I'm a pro, too. Guess what...Pros use Canon and Nikon because they've been around for a while, they'll continue to be around for a while, and they work well. Leave the horse be!

*yawn*

I've worked for three papers for the past 5 years. For every shoot i have used a 1D. I started a business in which i gained a substantial profit my first 3 months of operation. For every shoot i have used a 1D.

The "pro's" use what is best within their budget. I am a "pro" in every sense of the word, i use what i can afford, it works fine for me. I would like better. I don't need it.

What it comes down to is that there are other good brands of camera's out there and its NOT just a Nikon vs Canon thing. Nikon and Canon have probably entrenched themselves in the pro world because of the old collection of lenses but in the days of film camera's many pro's used Pentax, Olympus, Ricoh, Konica, Minolta, Leica, Kodak, Fuji, Bronica, Haselblad, Toyo and MANY other brand camera's. They ALL took great pictures if the photographer was capable of taking them. Some features of certain camera's made getting some pictures easier than others but sports photographers in the old days used to get their action shots with 4x5 field cameras, I kid you not.

Pentax make some really nice cameras that would suit the OP down to the ground so they are worth looking at if the OP wants to and the Nikon and Canon are nice cameras too.

My view is that getting one nice lens to start with is often the way to go and the Pentax 16-45 F4 ED is one REALY nice lens thats not that expensive and no one is going to grow out of.

Regards, Anthony

What it comes down to is that there are other good brands of camera's out there and its NOT just a Nikon vs Canon thing. Nikon and Canon have probably entrenched themselves in the pro world because of the old collection of lenses but in the days of film camera's many pro's used Pentax, Olympus, Ricoh, Konica, Minolta, Leica, Kodak, Fuji, Bronica, Haselblad, Toyo and MANY other brand camera's. They ALL took great pictures if the photographer was capable of taking them. Some features of certain camera's made getting some pictures easier than others but sports photographers in the old days used to get their action shots with 4x5 field cameras, I kid you not.


You didn't read my post did you? Reread it if you did. Then come back and read your own post to test its logic.

You didn't read my post did you? Reread it if you did. Then come back and read your own post to test its logic.


I wasn't debating you with this post. It was a general post. Don't take everything as a personal attack.

Regards, Anthony