Foo - Nikon D3000 or Canon Rebel XS

Did a search, didn't see much on this. I see lots of nice photos on here so I'll assume there are some folks with camera info. I'm looking into these two models. Maybe even the Rebel XSI. Any reason why I should go with one or the other. Who makes better lenses? Also, any info on the quality of Tamaron lenses? Thanks for any info/opinions.

Neither.

Find a used D40.

what's your budget, and why aren't you asking on the dp review forums?

It is rather curious that one of your first posts on a cycling forum is about cameras.

Anyways, the basic image quality of both is extremely similar. As far as I've seen, the kit lenses with both of these cameras are quite comparable. The main differences are going to be the layout of the controls and menus as well as the build and feel. You should try each of the cameras in your price range in a store so you can get an idea which feels more natural to you.

For what it's worth, I use a D40 and am quite happy with it.

Tamron lenses tend to be hit or miss. They make some good ones, but many of their offerings make noteworthy compromises in build quality or sharpness in order to undersell the offerings from the camera manufacturers. Sigma is similar, although I have in general a slightly better impression of their consistency.

It is rather curious that one of your first posts on a cycling forum is about cameras.

I've lurked on the cycling related stuff for a while. I'm riding road bikes for 30 years. I don't need to ask how to set a crown race of if steel is faster then carbon for the 30th time. This on the other hand I know little about and see lots of nice photography on here. I was also interested in the views of people that weren't on a photo forum..

Thanks for the tamron info. I will shy away since I no too little to tell good from bad.

Sorry, didn't see that sub forum.. I'm looking to spend around 800-1k on a body 2 lenses, uv filter, bag, and memory card.

Canon. You can get a CMOS sensor for less money than with Nikon.

I've got my eye on a Pentax kx. So I'm biased and would have to say that. :)

The Tamaron are OK lenses. Not the best, but most everyone agrees they take darn good pictures and are a great value.

Neither.

Find a used D40.

I just purchased a Nikon D40 after much research.

For comparisons, go to kenrockwell.com

I just purchased a Nikon D40 after much research.

For comparisons, go to kenrockwell.com

There are a bunch on ebay. From real retailers as well. Maybe I'll give the D40 a nod. What sold you?

ComesATime71, just so you know ahead of time, part of how Nikon kept the cost and size minimal on the D40 (and the D3000 and D5000) was to eliminate the in-body autofocus motor. This is a small motor that connects to lenses that support the feature to turn the focus mechanism.

As a result, only lenses that have their own autofocus motor will autofocus on these cameras. These lenses are denoted by the "AF-S" label in their specifications. This is now pretty standard in new lens designs, and Nikon now has all of their most popular lenses available in AF-S, but you should be aware that many older autofocus lenses (labeled "AF" or "AF-D") will not autofocus.

You'll probably never encounter this unless you eventually buy older used lenses or one of a few current production lenses, but I just wanted to make sure this doesn't surprise you down the road. I personally have several lenses that don't autofocus on my D40 and get along quite well with them.

I just purchased a Nikon D40 after much research.

For comparisons, go to kenrockwell.com

yup, d40, ken says it better than most of us could.

Go Pentax. I'm in love with my K10D.

There are a bunch on ebay. From real retailers as well. Maybe I'll give the D40 a nod. What sold you?

First off you need to know my guy is a research scientist... he loves to research just about everything. Sort of drives me nuts. Over a year he has been looking at cameras including the expensive Canon Mark cameras. I have several professional photog buddies and they all use Canons. I love my little Canons.

So after much comparison, research and more comparison, the guy bought the D40 (he really wanted the D90 but this was cheaper). He let me play with the camera and I instantly fell in love with the feel and operation of the camera plus it takes beautiful photos. I didn't need a camera but I wanted this one. I got a good deal through Adorama - the camera plus lens, bag and 2G card - $453. You wouldn't be sorry...

Ken Rockwell is seen as a troll on most photography forums. Just saying :innocent:

p.s to see what I'm talking about; just google his name :)

Ken Rockwell is seen as a troll on most photography forums. Just saying :innocent:

p.s to see what I'm talking about; just google his name :)

Wow, brutal...

Most others seem high on the D40 as well though..

I have found Nikons to be a bit sturdier than Canons. If you're taking your camera out on the bike that might be something to think about, too. Personally, I tried a Fuji FinePix S5200 a few years ago (still have it, actually), and it takes great pics & travels well. The pics are crisp enough that I really have no need to upgrade until it dies!

I have found Nikons to be a bit sturdier than Canons. If you're taking your camera out on the bike that might be something to think about, too. Personally, I tried a Fuji FinePix S5200 a few years ago (still have it, actually), and it takes great pics & travels well. The pics are crisp enough that I really have no need to upgrade until it dies!

who takes a DSLR out on a ride?

Ok now a more "camera related" post :)

It just depends on what you want to shoot. If you wanna take pictures of people and urban places then Nikon might be a better choice since they have a lot of good lenses that support that kind of photography very well. If you want to shoot a lot of landscapes and macro shots then Canon would be a better choice since they have better zoom lenses and unique macro lenses (mp-e 65 is a more professional/serious macro lens).

Of course they both cross the lines of their respective fields and Nikon can take good Landscape pictures and Canon can take good urban/portrait pictures. Keep in mind though; if you go one route and decide to change to another brand later on; it can be very very expensive depending on how deep you've gone into it.

Bottom line; neither is better than the other; they both lean towards different kinds of photography. If you don't really have a preference then just go visit a camera store and hold each camera and choose which one is more comfortable to hold and use.
p.s. I use primarily Canon if that makes any difference :) .

Ok now a more "camera related" post :)

It just depends on what you want to shoot. If you wanna take pictures of people and urban places then Nikon might be a better choice since they have a lot of good lenses that support that kind of photography very well. If you want to shoot a lot of landscapes and macro shots then Canon would be a better choice since they have better zoom lenses and unique macro lenses (mp-e 65 is a more professional/serious macro lens).

Of course they both cross the lines of their respective fields and Nikon can take good Landscape pictures and Canon can take good urban/portrait pictures. Keep in mind though; if you go one route and decide to change to another brand later on; it can be very very expensive depending on how deep you've gone into it.

Bottom line; neither is better than the other; they both lean towards different kinds of photography. If you don't really have a preference then just go visit a camera store and hold each camera and choose which one is more comfortable to hold and use.
p.s. I use primarily Canon if that makes any difference :) .

I have to disagree with that.

But put my card in for Canon. :)

I went with the Rebel XS...

:thumb:

who takes a DSLR out on a ride?

uuuhhh..... my son?

uuuhhh..... my son?

? .

http://www.bikeed.org/images/kid_on_bike.jpg

Check out both cameras.
Hold them in your hand, how does the camera feel?
How is the heft?
How is the balance with the lenses you intend to use?
How is the user interface?
How easy is it to change settings? Is it with an easy push of a button or is it menu driven?
How do you like the viewfinder?

I have always been a firm believer, when it comes to camera equipment, to buy one step above what you are looking for. If you are looking at the D3000, why not look at the D5000? Similar vein, in Cannon.

Disclosure: I am a moderator at a Nikon user group: www.Nikonians.org. It is a paid membership (minimum $25/year) but there is a 1 month trial for free. There is access to the D3000/D5000 forum with a trial membership so can get some opinions, there from actual users. There isn't a comparable Canon website, as far as I know.

Check out www.bythom.com. Tom Hogan has MUCH better reviews and is more consistent than Ken Rockwell, without alot of the tongue in cheek posts that many see as "TRUTH."

Having said that, both cameras will produce pretty good pictures, it all comes down to budget and preference. For my money, I shoot Nikon.

What ev... they are all good anymore

who takes a DSLR out on a ride?

What of it?

(skiing and mountain climbing, too)

What are your photographic goals? Why do you want an SLR?

The truth is that there is hardly a bad camera out there these days. Nikon and Canon both make great camera's but I chose a Pentax SLR over a Nikon even though I already had a collection of Nikon lenses from my Nikon film camera's because Pentax put the vibration reduction on the body where as Nikon and Canon puts the vibration reduction in the lenses which aren't cheap.

Personally I think that vibration reduction is the greatest advancement in camera design for quite a few years and I wouldn't be recommending that anyone buys a camera that doesn't have it unless they know EXACTLY why they don't want it.

Price the Nikons and Canons WITH a vibration reduction lens (or whatever they call it) and compare to the Pentax, Olympus and Sony models that have the vibration reduction on the body.

You know some of the point and shoot compacts are VERY impressive these days. My mother just bought one of these and the results were fantastic, http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_zs3-review/
You really want to know what you want to achieve with an SLR that a compact cant before buying one and you really DO want vibration reduction.

Anthony

What of it?

(skiing and mountain climbing, too)

fredelicious.

Just fooling around with the new camera. I have a lot to learn. I need to sit and read the manual there are more settings then I will need or ever have the time to figure out... As for my photog goals. I really just needed a camera that when I zoom in on something the pics would always come out out of focus with my crappy old Nikon Coolpix 5000


http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8243/img0663pc.jpg (http://img4.imageshack.us/i/img0663pc.jpg/)

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/44/img0650to.jpg (http://img27.imageshack.us/i/img0650to.jpg/)

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/6265/img0184b.jpg (http://img683.imageshack.us/i/img0184b.jpg/)

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3029/img0191pj.jpg (http://img9.imageshack.us/i/img0191pj.jpg/)




(http://img697.imageshack.us/i/img0650b.jpg/)

^^ Whoah, that's some righteous oregano up there. That's the turbo mexican strain right?

The bike pic is better tho.

^^ Whoah, that's some righteous oregano up there. That's the turbo mexican strain right?

The bike pic is better tho.

N. California oregano.

lay off the weed, and start resizing your pics.

I have script from my doctor..

lay off the weed, and start resizing your pics.

Should they be uploaded for a 17 inch monitor or 15? I use Imageshack and went with the default.

fredelicious.

Meh. Usually I take my Canon Elph. Sometimes I mix hobbies and so the extra weight is worth it to me. Climbing mountains is enough work I just won't settle for the point-and-shoot.


Should they be uploaded for a 17 inch monitor or 15? I use Imageshack and went with the default.

I personally go for 600 to 800 pixels on the long edge. If Imageshack resizes them based on monitor size, probably go with 15". Most people with 1024 pixel wide,15" screens will have about 800 pixels worth of useful content width on typical websites.

Meh. Usually I take my Canon Elph. Sometimes I mix hobbies and so the extra weight is worth it to me. Climbing mountains is enough work I just won't settle for the point-and-shoot.


I personally go for 600 to 800 pixels on the long edge. If Imageshack resizes them based on monitor size, probably go with 15". Most people with 1024 pixel wide,15" screens will have about 800 pixels worth of useful content width on typical websites.

an elph is a point and shoot.

Buy which ever one feels better in your hands. Otherwise they are equal.

You wouldn't buy a bike that didn't fit right even though everyone says it's awesome, would you?

(I grew up shooting Minoltas. 6 years ago, I bought Nikons, liking them over Canons, now I have a D50, N80, N75, FM, and a Mamiya M645)

an elph is a point and shoot.

It should make sense if you read it again and contrast "usually" against "sometimes." Given the effort and planning I put into climbing, I prefer to go for best quality and heft my better camera, which isn't the Elph.

nikon period

nikon period

I don't need a camera that bleeds once a month.

hahahaha LOL it took a second but GOOD ONE!

hahahaha LOL it took a second but GOOD ONE!

I already bought a Canon. I'm sure I couldn't have gone wrong with either.

Buy which ever one feels better in your hands. Otherwise they are equal.

You wouldn't buy a bike that didn't fit right even though everyone says it's awesome, would you?

(I grew up shooting Minoltas. 6 years ago, I bought Nikons, liking them over Canons, now I have a D50, N80, N75, FM, and a Mamiya M645)

Comparing bike fit and how a camera feels in my hands is a bit extreme IMO..

it's not what you have; it's what you do with it. last summer I used disposable cameras while vacationing/biking with my kids. I got lots of great pictures! and I didn't have to worry about my "precious photographic machine"

It should make sense if you read it again and contrast "usually" against "sometimes." Given the effort and planning I put into climbing, I prefer to go for best quality and heft my better camera, which isn't the Elph.

you're either a very good climber, or a very bad photographer.


it's not what you have; it's what you do with it. last summer I used disposable cameras while vacationing/biking with my kids. I got lots of great pictures! and I didn't have to worry about my "precious photographic machine"

more or less correct.

ps - these were all taken with a canon 550sd.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/botto/MdD_campolongo_corv.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/botto/MdD_Passo_Sella_descent.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/botto/France/aub_04.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/botto/pantani/23_stelv.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/botto/pantani/70_mort_bonus.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/botto/pantani/16_morti_descent.jpg


is the quality of my 5d better? hell yes.

would i have ever bothered to lug it with me on those rides? hell no.

you're either a very good climber, or a very bad photographer.

is the quality of my 5d better? hell yes.

would i have ever bothered to lug it with me on those rides? hell no.

The level of photographic skill isn't the question here. I can take crappy or good pictures with either, but for the same shot, my SLR does sufficiently better that I'm happy to have it along. Obviously you're satisfied with your SD550 in such situations, and I have nothing against that. I wouldn't pack a 5D all the way to the top, but a D40 is a relatively trivial addition to my pack.

The level of climbing skill isn't at issue either. A climber who can't deal with a 26 ounce difference in pack weight has a lot bigger things to worry about than their pictures anyways.

The overall point is a climber/cyclist/skier/etc. who prefers not to deal with the weight of an optional item simply has different preferences than me, but you seem bothered by that difference of opinion to the point of flippant sarcasm, even though I haven't challenged anything you've said.

you're either a very good climber, or a very bad photographer.

more or less correct.

ps - these were all taken with a canon 550sd.

is the quality of my 5d better? hell yes.

would i have ever bothered to lug it with me on those rides? hell no.

Your pics are beautiful but even a monkey could take good pictures in mountains like that. (I'm going to be near Stelvio next month (skiing in Val di Sole) so I really like that picture.) But, they all just look like snapshots and if that's what you want then you are correct that a point-and-shoot was the better choice.

I was in New Zealand in 2008 and got some incredible pictures with my Olympus waterproof point-and-shoot. I'll take a little credit for framing and set up of the subjects, but really it was the scenery that made the pictures great for anyone who looks at them. I also took my old 35mm Minolta and took pictures with it and both the wide-angle and zoom lens that I could not take with the Olympus. Are they better? Arguable but I think so in a lot of cases.
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=134152http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=134148http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=134147

Your pics are beautiful but even a monkey could take good pictures in mountains like that. (I'm going to be near Stelvio next month (skiing in Val di Sole) so I really like that picture.) But, they all just look like snapshots and if that's what you want then you are correct that a point-and-shoot was the better choice.

While I was put off by his response, I wouldn't dismiss the pictures he presented as snapshots. Yes, he was immensely helped by the scenery and the lighting, but it looks to me, especially for the first two, that he put some actual thought into them, framing interesting elements and perhaps using a polarizer to keep the brightness of the sky under control. I suspect the resolution and sharpness is marginal for printing satisfactory enlargements, but I won't critique such details not knowing what he intends to do with these pictures.

Enjoy your trip. The scenery looks gorgeous.

Canon for show, Nikon for dough...