Digital SLR Recommendations

[tkam]

My trusty Sony a100 bit the dust the other day and it's well out of warranty at this point so I figure it's time for a new camera. I'd like to keep the cost under $1k (body only or w/ kit lens). While I liked the a100 I'm thinking it might be a good idea to go with a Canon or Nikon this time due to the large of amount of available lenses and their seemingly better performance at higher ISO levels.

Any suggestions/recommendations are appreciated

[Beefy]

I'm pretty damn happy with my Nikon D90. Body only model should be inside your price range.

Canon 50D is probably out of the picture. You might be able to get a really good deal on a 40D or D80 if you don't mind buying an older model.

[tkam]

Can get the nikon d90 body only for about $889 and the canon 40d body only for around $850.

Regarding the d90, any good lens recommendations?

[Beefy]

That isn't quite the smoking deal on the 40D that I thought you might get.

If it were me, my money would still be on the much newer D90.

[penger]

My friend's dad bought the 40D but ended up exchanging it for the XSi because of weight issues. To him, it was a lot to lug around for an entire day hiking and what not. Dunno if that factors into your decision though.

[Beefy]

That is one of the reasons I went for the D90. Same 'class' as the 40/50D, but a little bit smaller and lighter.

The XSi and D60 are a step below, and don't have all of the capabilities I wanted.

[n_maher]

Todd,

I'd look around and see if you can't find a good deal on a leftover D80. A quick google suggested it might be possible to pickup the body for ~$500 which would leave you almost enough to get the 18-200VR lens. That's what I shoot with 99% of the time.

I just checked, Adorama still has D80s NIB and offers a few kits that might be appealing.

[morphsci]

I would second Nates recommendation. The D80 is a very good camera, still pretty light, but not too light for handholding (a problem with my D50) and can be had with some smoking deals. I just received the 18-200VR and I must say, this is not your fathers zoom lens. The VR technology seems to have matured and really makes handholding realistic for many situations that previously required a tripod.

[Cankin]

That is one of the reasons I went for the D90. Same 'class' as the 40/50D, but a little bit smaller and lighter.

The XSi and D60 are a step below, and don't have all of the capabilities I wanted.

I always found there's no equivalent class between Canons and Nikon. For example, 40/50D are actually above D90/80 but below D700/300.

Same as D700/300, while they're a slight step about 40/50D, they're below 5D/1DmkII.

[morphsci]

I always found there's no equivalent class between Canons and Nikon. For example, 40/50D are actually above D90/80 but below D700/300.

Same as D700/300, while they're a slight step about 40/50D, they're below 1DmkII.

That is because they leapfrog each other when they introduce new models. It has always been like that, but is more noticeable now with the increased frequency of model upgrades.

[n_maher]

It has always been like that, but is more noticeable ridiculous now with the increased frequency of model upgrades.

FIFY

[dark-hc]

What do you intend to shoot primarily? Sports, portraits, landscapes, buildings, etc.?

[HD_Dude]

I'm Nikon fan...lots of lenses and the D3. Also had the D70, the D80, the D200, the D300, the D700...kept trading up.

As you can tell, I love Nikon. But Canons are great, too.

Don't let anyone tell you one 'sucks' while the other is the only way to go.

The real investment is going to be the lenses. They'll last 20 years, while you'll probably replace the body several times.

So, whether you go Canon or Nikon - both are excellent - you'll probably stay with that brand a long time.

I'd go to a camera shop and bring your own CF or SD card, and just try 'em out. Shoot, shoot, shoot. Then go home and look at your results. If you like one over the other, go for it! If it's a draw, shop price.

[Knuckledragger]

In the price range where you're looking (sub-$1000 dSLRS), I would focus on Nikon. Canons don't start making sense until you're in a higher price bracket. Also, Canon's 18-55mm kit lens sucks. Unless you opt for the more expensive 17-85mm IS kit lens, it's better to buy body only. What makes the Canon EOS line appealing is their lenses. If you have plans to buy a lot of glass in the future, Canon is the obvious choice. Especially if you like fast primes (24 F/1.4, 35 F/1.4, 85 F/1.2, 135 F/2 etc) and quality zooms (pretty much all of the L zoom series). Knowing what I know now, and were I in the market for a dSLR, I'd be looking for a heavily discounted Canon 5D (mk I). For most people, I'd suggest a D90 or D60.

Be forewarned, the D80's light meter has a mind of its own. It's infamous for overexposing in most situations, and underexposing when you least expect it. That said, it's a nice camera if you don't mind continually chimping (looking at the LCD) to check your last shot. My friend Archie [photos NSFW] has one and loves it. He generally shoots in a controlled environment, so exposure issues aren't a problem for him.

If you look, Adorama often has deals where they include two lenses with Nikon bodies. Archie spent a long time on the phone with them, and got the D80, the 18-55mm VR and the 50-<mumble>mm VR in a package deal. They might be less willing to offer a similar deal with the D90, as it's a much newer body.

[n_maher]

Be forewarned, the D80's light meter has a mind of its own. It's infamous for overexposing in most situations, and underexposing when you least expect it. That said, it's a nice camera if you don't mind continually chimping (looking at the LCD) to check your last shot. My friend Archie [photos NSFW] has one and loves it. He generally shoots in a controlled environment, so exposure issues aren't a problem for him.

You know, I read that for the first time today and can't think of a time when I've had that problem with mine. I don't shoot a lot but metering has never been an issue. User error, now that's a different story.

[dark-hc]

In the price range where you're looking (sub-$1000 dSLRS), I would focus on Nikon.

I wouldn't necessarily leave Canon out of the picture entirely, as 30Ds and 40Ds can go anywhere from $400-$700, leaving you plenty of room for a solid lens still.

I do agree that the investment will be in the lenses, and recognize you are buying into an entire system (bodies, lenses, flash system, etc). Ergonomics are part of what can separate the Canon and Nikon crowds, so I'd recommend you go into a local camera shop, and handle some of the various cameras. Both brands can produce fantastic images, but one might suit your hands and preferences more than the other.

[devwild]

As said, lenses are really where the money needs to go, it makes a world of difference regardless of the body. Depending on your shooting style I recommend taking a close look at your lens options first and foremost.

Personally I own an XSi - I wanted a 50D as an upgrade from my XT, but it didn't come out with certain features I want, and know will be released within a year, so I chose instead to go cheap (I was able to get the body for under $400), and I plan on keeping the XSi even when I do upgrade as a secondary camera. It's not as much of a step below the 40D as some might tell you, the biggest faults being in low light due to limited iso options and a bit less dynamic range. It's a big step up from the previous Rebels with larger viewfinder and more competitive image quality. The resolution and performance is up there with the bigger boys for most shooting, and the small size and weight can be really convenient when traveling. It should be noted that the next rebel is rumored to be released soon - most of the rumored features are unfounded guesses, but it will most likely have more bells and whistles in many ways than the 50D (canon is horrible about that).

Basically all I'm saying is that if you want to save some money for lenses, I feel the line is still a viable option - you can always upgrade in a couple years, and once you start buying lenses the body is only a fraction of your total cost. Glass is going to be a long term investment, while the body is going to cause a lot more upgraditis anyway.

I've also used the D90 thanks to a friend who recently bought one, and it is an outstanding camera for the price point, and the feature set, including video, is a lot of fun. I considered jumping ship and dumping my canon gear, but couldn't give up the lenses. Right now I'm happy I didn't, because it looks like I'm getting an awesome deal on a lightly used canon 24mm tilt-shift this weekend.

As for lenses, I highly recommend the Sigma 10-20mm on either brand (the canon 10-22 on canon bodies performs a little better/costs a little more), a very fun lens. Sigma's new 50mm prime is supposed to be a serious competitor too, and I believe it. There are some great options in 90 or 100mm macro lenses that are worth looking into, and you can either use one of those for a portrait lens, or get an 85mm prime.

Good luck!

[devwild]

A fun site to get you drooling over the lens options (usually a little behind the newest selection, but still good for comparisons and overviews of what's available from both first and third parties): photozone

[Cankin]

As for lenses, I highly recommend the Sigma 10-20mm on either brand (the canon 10-22 on canon bodies performs a little better/costs a little more), a very fun lens.

Beside Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, I've read many positive reviews of Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 too

[Nebby]

Great comments devwild, pretty much what I was going to say If you're even remotely thinking of buying lenses in the future, it's best to think of your purchase as buying into a system rather than a camera. Look over the Nikon lineup vs the Canon lineup and decide what works for you better.

Last I checked, generally speaking Canon's lineup was slightly better in the telephoto selection while Nikon seemed better with wide lenses. But as always, don't take my word for it...check for yourself

[Knuckledragger]

In terms of in-production lenses (Nikon's lens history more or less thouroughly pwnz Canon's) Nikon is better than Canon at the wide end for exactly one reason: the 14-25mm F/2.8 zoom. It's sharper than Canon's 14mm F/2.8 (II) prime, and costs the same price or less. It's so good that well-heeled Canon owners are buying a GBP150 adapter that allows them to use it with their full frame Canon bodies. (The adapter is that expensive because the 14-24 is a "G" lens and lacks manual aperture controls and requires an electric interface.) Apart from that, Canon wide lenses are quite good. The EF 16-35mm F/2.8 II is a killer lens, if quite spendy. The EF 17-40mm F/4L is basically as sharp, but not quite as wide, and a stop slower. It's much lighter and cheaper, however. I own one and love it. For cropped sensors, Canon makes the best ultrawide, period. The EF-S 10-22mm is a ridiculously good piece of glass, and none of the competing models are anywhere close to it.

The 14-24 is a powerful argument for going with the Nikon system (provided you are getting a full frame sensor) and it illustrates Nikon's real strength: specialty glass. Nikon's fisheyes are pretty much universally better than Canons, and their best (the absolutely bonkers 8mm F/2.8 ) is in a class by itself. Nikon also makes two brilliant portrait lenses, the 100mm and 135mm F/2 "Defocus Control" primes. Both have a secondary control to adjust spherical aberration and adjust the quality of the bokeh (out of focus area) of the shot. Only the even more insane Konica Minolta 135mm STF is better in this area. [Warning: latenight tangent] The STF is F/2.8 but it's transmission factor is equivalent to F/4.5, a stop and a third slower than its maximum aperture. This is due to a special conical element it has designed to product gaussian distribution of out of focus highlights. It's such a cult lens there's a site dedicated to it. [end tangent]

Nikon announced a bunch of new super-expensive teles a while back, and I must admit I've paid virtually no attention to them. $6000 400mm F/2.8 image stabilized primes are of no interest to me. Their release is a sign that Nikon wants back into the pro/sports market, where they haven't had much of a footprint in 20 years. I think Canon still has the edge in the long (witness the 800mm F/5.6L) but Nikon is definitely encroaching on their territory.

To get back to the original point of this thread: Nikon makes much better kit lenses (Canons tend to suck), and has some select specialty models that best Canon by a wide margin. Canon's current line of glass is better than any other company's and Canon is able to introduce more new models more often and get them to market faster than anyone else. Witness the new 17mm full frame tilt shift lens, which wasn't even though possible until Canon pulled it off.

Realistically, I'd suggest a Nikon D60, D80 or D90, and VR version of both kit lenses (the 18-55 and uh, 50-200?) Don't skimp on the VR. Later look at the 35mm F/2 or the new DX-only 35mm F/1.8. Also consider the 50mm F/1.8 and 85mm F/1.8. That's all any sane person is likely to need.

In the Canon world, a new old stock 30D is quite a bargain if you can find one, and the 40D is heavily discounted as well. the X0D bodies are built like tanks and have very nice ergonomic controls. At least for someone with ginormous hands like myself. I do not like the Rebel series. I find them to be cheap feeling, and they have fiddly controls and dim viewfinders. The EF-S 17-85mm IS kit lens is not perfect, but it's lightyears beyond the 18-55. It makes a great one lens solution. The EF 35mm F/2 is the best deal in the entire Canon lineup (and cheaper than Nikon's 35mm, to boot). The 50mm F/1.4 is not a great lens, but it's the cheapest way to get F/1.4. The only way under a grand, in fact. The EF 85mm F/1.8 is best bang for the buck, if you care about bokeh (PROTIP: life is easier if you don't.)

I'm not going to seriously suggest any full frame sensor bodies or L glass. I should have been in bed hours ago.

[tkam]

I do agree with what a lot of you are saying about the lenses being more important in the long run but I'm not someone whose going to get a new camera every couple years and I doubt I'll ever own more than a handful of lenses.

I did get a chance last night to stop at the local Ritz Camera and try out a few cameras. They had display models for the Canon Rebel XSi and the 50D for Nikon they had the D60 and D90.

At least for someone with ginormous hands like myself. I do not like the Rebel series. I find them to be cheap feeling, and they have fiddly controls and dim viewfinders.

That pretty much mirrors my impressions, maybe it's because of my big hands but the XSi just didn't feel right to me at all. I really didn't expect ergonomics to play that much of a role but they've pretty much ruled the XSi out for me. The 50D was much better ergonomically and is built extremely well but it's out of my price range. The D90 felt great, has a little more weight than the XSi which I liked and overall seemed to fit my hand better.

[Beefy]

... and I doubt I'll ever own more than a handful of lenses.

I'm the same.

I started out with the Nikon 18-200VR and, like Nate, absolutely adore it. Not super-fast, not super-sharp, but very reliable and covers pretty much everything I could possibly want to shoot. I recently added a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 which is a no-brainer; excellent performance, very inexpensive and it forces me to improve my technique.

Aside from perhaps a macro or wide-angle lens, I doubt I'll ever need anything else in my kit. Well, that is what my wallet and partner are telling me anyway

[devwild]

That pretty much mirrors my impressions, maybe it's because of my big hands but the XSi just didn't feel right to me at all. I really didn't expect ergonomics to play that much of a role but they've pretty much ruled the XSi out for me. The 50D was much better ergonomically and is built extremely well but it's out of my price range. The D90 felt great, has a little more weight than the XSi which I liked and overall seemed to fit my hand better.

It's funny, I'm 6'5" with big spider hands, and while I've heard this a lot, I've never had a problem with the Rebel series. It seems that because my hand size is so large, I curl my fingers downward on the front side of the grip, and it just kind of works. Most of my friends agree with your comments. I have problems with the grips on some normal DSLRs because I can't comfortably hold the grip normally or curl my fingers. It's a good example of why to always try for yourself.

The battery grip accessory makes these bodies much easier to hold for most people, but it negates a lot of the size benefit if you wouldn't normally use one (but it is great for portrait shots).

[devwild]

I started out with the Nikon 18-200VR and, like Nate, absolutely adore it. Not super-fast, not super-sharp,

The nikon folks I know eventually tired with this lens and stopped taking it out for just this reason (this is a problem with most of both nikon and canon VR/IS consumer-class zoom lenses), and it's a bigger issue with the newer bodies, because the 12MP+ resolution really lets you know when your lens isn't quite sharp enough. These lenses are great for casual shooting and family photos, but if you're a detail lover (architecture, landscape photography), it will drive you to swap out eventually.

However, both companies are upgrading all these lenses because of these complaints, so it's good to keep an eye on the reviews.