help me buy a camera/help me buy a horse

[kirkcudbright]

1) As threatened, I registered for the Advanced Photoshop class (which was inexplicably not only not cancelled, but well subscribed). The instructor doesn't know me, or what I'm capable of, so I could slide through it, but that's not what I'm about. What I really want to do in this class is Worth1000 kind of stuff.

But that's not what I came here to talk about. I'm finally ready to buy an entry-level SLR. My contenders are (in approximate order of preference)

• Canon 400D/Digital Rebel XTi
  
• Nikon D40X
  
• Olympus E-420
  
• Sony Alpha DSLR-A100

Any strong opinions from the list? Love? Hate? Something else I should be considering? I want to keep the initial kit affordable, but extensible (while not requiring a lot of extensions to be reasonable/workable). Help?

b) The weather has been suckalicious, and there's still a lot going on on both sides, but I've arranged to ride Gemini again next Friday, as well as Razzy (who used to have two girls fighting over him, but they've both disappeared, so he's unexpectedly still available).

One interesting variant on this is that I could foster one of these horses - like adoption, except for 3 months without the long-term commitment. One of the other volunteers is fostering Miss Pie, and will probably adopt at the end of 3 months.

Comments

[deguspice.livejournal.com]

I don't know about DSLRs, but I've found that http://www.imaging-resource.com/ has good reviews of cameras (and sample photos).

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

www.dpreview.com is fantastic...

i'd go canon. large buy in, in the crowd...

with canon, do not buy EF-S lenses if you can help it. someday you might want a full frame sensor (5D mkII), and well, EF-S won't work there. someday, you might GET a full frame sensor on the NND line and XT line ANYWAY (feature creep), and again, bye bye EF-S. EF-S basically is for the 1.6x crop sensor, which currently is almost all of them, except the 5D and 1D flavors... more or less.

er, uh... yah. even from the XT viewpoint, the 50D is verah nice and a good investment.

#

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

i think the fostering is just an awesome idea.

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

Unless you have a pre-existing investment in Olympus or Minolta/Konica/Sony lenses, don't waste time considering something that's not a nikon or a canon.

Between the 400D and the D40X... eh. Try 'em both, see which fits better in your hand. They're both awesome cameras.

[coraline]

yes, this, with the added info that since the boston crowd is heavily canon-biased, swapping and borrowing lenses and trading info about them is easier with a canon. but if the UI or whatever on the nikon makes you happier, go for it.

[goddessfarmer.livejournal.com]

We've had Pentax for too many years to switch, before we went digital we already had enough lenses (not that I don't sometimes yearn for a longer telephoto). We are very happy with our Pentax iSTd, which we've had for about 3 years and with which Alice is taking her award-winning photos.

[penk.livejournal.com]

What dr_memory said. Nikon or Canon.

I have a 400D Xti, and adore it. Excellent performance, price point is great, very well supported (both for accessories and for software - ala, my Linux box went "Oh, nice Canon 400D. Want to download pics from it?" without any fiddlydiddling with drivers.

As far as picture quality - the current crop of DSLR's are all in the "ZOMG THIS IS AWESOME" territory, so IMHO it's down to "do you like canon or do you like nikon?"

My photostream on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planet-geek/) is a mix of shots from my iPhone and from my Canon, but feel free to explore. (there's also a lot of shots from my older C770 - I used to be an Olympus follower, but IMHO they dropped the ball on the DSLR front)

I like Canon, I have a 400D, and I approve this message.

[sensesurfer.livejournal.com]

Haven't really been keeping up with latest greatest bodies etc. Would generally recommend not getting the entry level body as they generaly have buttons instead of dials for the UI. Also at least with cannon they are physically smaller and that can be problematic if you ever shoot bigger glass. For about the same price you can usually get the prior years next up model.

[gravitrue.livejournal.com]

I'd choose between Canon and Nikon based on UI and which lenses you'd like. (There's also marketplace diversity issues, but I won't go into that...).

The reason to get a Sony (or perhaps a Pentax) is if you want to do lots of available light shooting in low-light conditions, such as sports at night, music in clubs, etc. For this, you want body anti-shake, and Canon and Nikon don't have it; fast anti-shake lenses are seriously expensive. But... the A100 only goes to ISO 1600, so the advantage is marginal.

I can't think of any compelling reason to get an Olympus; not a wide range of lenses made, tiny used lens pool, and it's not entirely clear how viable the system is. (The Panasonic G1, on the other hand, is fascinating...)

[quietann.livejournal.com]

I think Razzy's just adorable.

[kirkcudbright.livejournal.com]

He is. He came back from serious neglect, got into great shape, but hasn't been worked for several months, so he's a bit out of shape again. He also apparently has some "pony attitude". We'll find out what that means, and how bad it is.

[kirkcudbright.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on dpreview. Initial cut was based on price point, but I've spent a lot of time on dpreview reading their incredibly detailed reviews.

OTOH, I'm really not concerned about the lens issue. This will be my first SLR evar, and I'll be getting an entry level kit, with maybe a telephoto lens within the year. If I was planning on getting a bunch of specialty lenses, I'd probably be looking at a different body as well.

My 25 cents

[firespiral.livejournal.com]

Go with the Canon. Really. I find them consistent, easy to use, and readily available. I have found that they last for longer activations (clicks, shots, flips of the mirror, whatever) than the Nikons.

Good Luck with the horse.

+1 for Canon

[c1.livejournal.com]

Something not addressed in previous posts is that Canon has a massive front opening in their bodies, which means they can make faster lenses. This design decision meant that users of older Canon gear were forced into a pricey upgrade path, because their old Canon lenses don't fit the new bodies (this happened some time ago-- back in the '90s).
The ultimate speed of a lens is a ratio of the rear element diameter by the focal length. You can make the front element as big as a pie-plate, but everything has to cram through the rear...
Now, you may not want to shoot in dim, smoky jazz bars (and really, everyone has a 50mm f 1.4), but if you're shooting wildlife, remember that wildlife photography _starts_ at 400mm, and camera shake becomes a problem. Faster shutter speeds are a requirement, which means you need big apertures. You're going to want as fine grained an image as possible (think low film speeds), because you'll invariably crop, so again, you need a fast lens.

I'd also consider getting a used 20/30/40D. The Rebel line is great, but before long, you're going to grow out of it.

Re: +1 for Canon

[kirkcudbright.livejournal.com]

I'd also consider getting a used 20/30/40D. The Rebel line is great, but before long, you're going to grow out of it.

I hear you (all) loud and clear on the Canon, but I'm a little curious why you're recommending the up-purchase, given that my current shoot is a PowerShot S410.

I'm willing to be convinced, but I'm close to purchase.

Re: +1 for Canon

[c1.livejournal.com]

A couple things.
Number one is build quality. You pay less money for a Rebel for a reason. The Rebel is a great camera, but for only a modest sum more, you get more camera. Instead of plastic everything, more key components are made of metal. Metal==strength and stability, which in a camera is everything. (It also means more weight, FYI.)

Opting for a used body (assuming you have a reputable dealer like Hunt's or Zeff's) means you get more for your buck. Period.

Putting a 50D head to head with the latest Rebel, your extra $400 or so gets you much more with the 50D. ISO up to 12800, the ability to use CF cards (not just SD), faster "motor drive" (~6 FPS v. 3, and the buffer is BIGGER on the 50D), a LCD display on top (as well as the screen on the back), and a quick selector dial on the back.
That last one is a bigger deal than you think. Being able to set the "trigger" dial to adjust speed and the back dial to adjust aperture means that with one hand, you can adjust your exposure without taking your eye from the eyepiece.
Finally, the *D series uses a pentaprism, while the Rebels use a pentamirror system. Expect the latter to be darker-- I noticed the difference myself, and it annoyed to no end.

Now, the Rebel will be available in April, while you'll have to wait until October for the 50D. Presumably, you could get a 40D now if you looked a little, and there are people saying the new Rebel will have most of the features of the 40D, except the higher frame rate, pentaprism, no ISO 3200, no dial on the back, no LCD on top. You'd probably spend a comparable amount of money for more camera.

I recommend going to Hunt's or Zeff's, and renting one for a day or two. Not so sure you could rent a Rebel, but certainly a 40D. Shouldn't cost much, and if you go to Zeff's, ask for John DiStefano and drop my name. He'll take care of you.