Looking for digital SLR recommendations

[Beefy]

Keeping on topic. Do you have any reservations about the D90? I'm thinking about getting one to replace my D50 as my backup, slog around SLR.

Its the first DLSR I've used for more than a few shots...... But none, really - it has been solid as a rock.

Only time I ever used a D50 was connected to a microscope, which isn't really a useful comparison.

[Fing]

Sorry to chime in a little late.

I have a Nikon D70, bought about 5 years ago (that long?). It's a bit long in the tooth but still a very capable camera.

I bought a Panasonic GF1 a month ago.

Our baby was born late November and the majority of her early photographs were using a Canon IXUS P&S. Since our baby girl spent most of her first month asleep, this wasn't a problem. I did shoot a couple with the Nikon, but I kept the kit zoom on most of the time - I should have switched to the Sigma 35mm F1.4 at the earliest opportunity.

Anyway, since getting the GF1 and the 20mm F1.7 pancake, I've taken a few hundred of the baby and gotten quite a few very nice ones. It's noticeably better than the P&S and the wide aperture means I can stick to ISO 100 most of the time. One "advantage" of the micro4/3 is that the aperture reflects the amount of light hitting the sensor and not the depth of field that is being achieved. The depth of field on a micro4/3rds is double that of a full frame, so in effect it is the same as shooting at F3.4 wide open so you get more depth of field wide open than you would with a full frame or a APS-C sensor. Sometimes desireable, as close up shots sometimes have the nose out of focus relative to the eyes, the depth of field is so shallow.

The point is, all my favorite photos are using the GF1 and 20mm pancake. It's a very handy system that is much more portable and easy to use than a SLR and provides a noticeable improvement to the Canon IXUS, especially in low light. I don't think I've taken a single picture using the flash on the system. I read the relative reviews between the GF1 and the Olympus PEN and the GF1 is very fast - it takes a second from start up to taking a shot. It focuses quickly enough and you can take about 5 to 6 pictures in a couple of seconds before the buffer is full and it needs to slow down to just under a second to take more. In normal use, it's fine.

Another great feature is the press to record video button. Makes it very easy to capture a few seconds of video by simply pressing the button if there's a moment you want to catch.

I love the footprint, image quality, speed, not as fast as a DSLR but not so slow that I can't get the shot I want. Most importantly, I can hold the baby in one hand and the camera in the other with relative ease. I wouldn't even think of doing that with the dSLR - I'd rather switch to the cheapo P&S.

I wouldn't bother with the zoom kit lens (14-45), at least to start with. It's a nice lens but very few of the pictures I've taken with it are worth post-processing unless they've been outside or in great light. The 20mm is brilliant indoors and I think would make a good walk-around lens as well.

[Fing]

For action/sports, a dSLR is clearly superior due to the optical viewfinder allowing you to follow the action that you wouldn't be able to with LiveView or an EVF, as well as the higher and longer burst rate of shooting. There are also a larger range of large aperture zooms than currently available to 4/3rd systems. The zooms coming out for 4/3rd systems are quite slow in comparison.

An aftermarket optical viewfinder could be used to get around the tracking problem and upgrades via later bodies should narrow the gap on speed and burst rate issues, though to be serious about action, I'd either shoot video or get a dedicated SLR for this purpose. The use case is low enough for me at the moment that I'm happy to settle for the former.

Also I've heard another way to get good 'action shots' is to capture it in mpeg and 'pull out a frame' though I must confess to being ignorant of this process. The GF1's top resolution is only 1280 x 720, 30 fps, at the moment, so any captures would only be good enough for a 4x6 print and most likely blurry as well.

[n_maher]

Haj,

I'd give serious thought to this - http://www.head-case.org/forums/general-sale/8025-fs-lumix-lx3.html.

[Beefy]

I have a Nikon D70, bought about 5 years ago (that long?). It's a bit long in the tooth but still a very capable camera.

I bought a Panasonic GF1 a month ago.

I seriously considered the

[morphsci]

Its the first DLSR I've used for more than a few shots...... But none, really - it has been solid as a rock.

Only time I ever used a D50 was connected to a microscope, which isn't really a useful comparison.

The D90 is a bit heavier than the D50 but you, like everyone else I asked, Inducate that it is a great camera. As long as its AF sensor is the equal of the D50 i will do this sooner versus later. Thanks.

I seriously considered the

Edited February 15, 2010 by morphsci

[episiarch]

Jumping in a little late here. What I've found is that I feel handicapped without an image-stabilizing/vibration-reduction lens covering at least the 18-85mm range (assuming the reduced-frame type of DSLR usually available on this budget rather than a full-35mm-frame DSLR). So if it were me with $1K to spend, I'd be building the system around that requirement.

Having a 28-135 IS already in the closet almost complicates things. When we got our Canon DSLR we just moved all our EOS film system lenses over to it, including that exact 28-135 IS lens, and we were pretty much ready to go. We used whatever non-IS kit lens came with the rig for the range below 28mm, and that was okay some of the time. But really it was a hindrance, especially when traveling, and eventually we got the Canon 17-85mm IS lens and really never used the 28-135 after that. The wide end of the range is pretty essential for us, but maybe it isn't for you. I suppose I'm really saying: give some thought to whether you really will be happy with your current EOS lenses plus some kit lens for the wide end, or whether you need to plan your budget around the expectation of getting a more all-in-one type of zoom before long.

(We now shoot Nikon instead of Canon, for circumstantial reasons having nothing to do with the intrinsic benefits of either brand. I'm comfortable with the Nikon now but I'd probably lean towards Canon if I were starting over, just because I shot Canon EOS 35mm for so long that the Canon controls are still what feel most right in my hands.)

I concur with Knuckledragger's opinion that having a second control wheel is a big plus.

Two things re shooting pictures of kids: (points @ avatar pic in case there's a question about whether I'm a parent)

First, when shooting children there is no subsitute for a camera that fires right NOW when you hit the shutter release. Every P&S (and intermediate camera like the Canon S IS series) that I've tried has had pretty intolerable levels of shutter delay. And DSLRs aren't all equally fast either. Our D90 was a very nice step up from our D40 because it finds focus and fires a lot faster - a make-or-break difference in some shots.

Second, bounce flash makes all the difference when shooting indoor people pix - like of your child. It's just an indispensable improvement. If that's important to you, then do the research to see how much automation the 380EX you already have will give you with the bodies you're contemplating. Looks like it's an old unit, so it might not be fully automated with the newer bodies. FWIW I've found that a smaller less-powerful unit (mine's an SB400, roughly Nikon's equivalent to the Canon 270EX) is painless to leave on the camera full-time, so we are always ready to shoot great indoor kid pictures.

[episiarch]

@morphsci another D90 fan here. I don't know the D50, but I do have a D40 (which I guess is newer and which photography blogger Ken Rockwell likes better) and the D90 is a very nice step up from it. The big wins for me compared to D40 are:

- Better autofocus. Lots more focus points, some 'intelligent' focus-point selection algorithms, and most importantly, finds focus faster. Hit the shutter and it just nails focus NOW and fires NOW. I value this.

- Better exposure. I frequently needed to introduce exposure compensation on the D40 (just a third or two thirds of a stop down, but it varied), but I almost never do on the D90 unless I'm shooting 'artistically' for some effect.

- More, more-accessible, controls. Some customizability too. I like being able to switch 'film' on the fly, going from a high-saturation kind of look to something less saturated and a little warm for people pictures, with only a few button presses instead of digging deep into menus. Whether or not that specific thing is important to you, the D90 just has lots more controls, lots more you can do on the fly instead of through the menu system.

[morphsci]

@episiarch - Yeah I pretty much decided on the D-90 as it also lets me sample some of the D-300 technology and see if I need to step up from the D-200. Right now I do not see a real good reason for my needs but like most new technology I probably don't know I need it until I actually use it.

[Salt Peanuts]

Went to a local shop to get the lenses checked out as well as to drop off wife's old camera to be checked out (to see if everything is up to spec) before we put it up for sale. Lenses are in fine working order and we'll know about the camera in few days. Unfortunately, the shop didn't have any of the cameras I wanted to handle so I may be heading out to another shop later today.

episiarch - I did forget about the crop factor, which would make the 28-135mm lens effectively ~45-216mm and I fear that wouldn't be useful to us, particularly on the wide end.

Another option that came up while talking to the guy at the ship is to sell the EOS 3 with the lenses and the flash and put whatever I can get from the package to another camera system or a lens that fits our needs better.

[n_maher]

Haj,

I doubt you'll get much for the used film rig, especially the body. If the lenses are decent and will work on modern bodies you're better served keeping them.

[episiarch]

morphsci, if you're looking at the D90 as kind of a D300 sampler, then maybe you want to consider the D5000 as an alternative. It still has the D90's sensor, its AF and its exposure smarts, costs a few dollars less, is smaller, and adds two really interesting features: an articulating screen, and a quiet mode that's apparently really really effective. In exchange you give up the extra complement of controls that the D90 body has. Haven't tried one myself, but there've been times I really would have liked one or the other of those extra features.

[Knuckledragger]

Another option that came up while talking to the guy at the ship is to sell the EOS 3 with the lenses and the flash and put whatever I can get from the package to another camera system or a lens that fits our needs better.

Echoing what Nate said to some degreee, used 35mm film camera bodies bring very little, unless they are Leicas or something similarly exotic. Do you know what lenses the seller is including? Also, which flash unit?

There's an important point here WRT external flashes and APS-C cropped sensor cameras: The canon 580EX was first speedlite to recogize the difference between an APS-C, APS-H, and full frame/film body, and then adjust its output accordingly. Older flashes won't do this and will be calculating for a wider angle. I can't say specifically what the real world effects of this incompatibility might be (I've only shot with the 580EX and 580EX II) but I do recognize it as an important consideration. I have used "manual" flash units, and in situations where I have a stationary (patient) subject, they're fine. It takes time to adjust the camera's settings with respect to the flash's output power and distance to the subject. I would not want to have to monkey around with anything less than a fully compatible speedlite when dealing with a subject like a small child. YMMV.

Lastly, Canon may have in fact introduced some additional speelites between the release of the 580EX and 580EXII that are APS-C compatible. I have no idea which ones, but I suggest investigating the model you're considering if you're not sure.

[Salt Peanuts]

Just to clarify, the possible thought was to sell our EOS 3 with the aforementioned lenses (EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS) and Speedlite 380EX. Then put whatever we get from that toward another system/lens (on top of the original budget) instead of being tied down to Canon system or lenses mentioned by keeping them.

But you guys are right, EOS 3 body probably won't get us all that much.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Salt Peanuts

[morphsci]

morphsci, if you're looking at the D90 as kind of a D300 sampler, then maybe you want to consider the D5000 as an alternative. It still has the D90's sensor, its AF and its exposure smarts, costs a few dollars less, is smaller, and adds two really interesting features: an articulating screen, and a quiet mode that's apparently really really effective. In exchange you give up the extra complement of controls that the D90 body has. Haven't tried one myself, but there've been times I really would have liked one or the other of those extra features.

I thought about it as it is certainly lighter. I'm not sure if I can give up the controls on the D90 and it uses a different battery wheras the D90 uses the same battery/charger as my D200. When it comes time I will definitely be looking at both of these as potential replacements.That articulating LCD is pretty cool.

[The Monkey]

I like this thread for many reasons. And here's my $.02...If I were buying today, I would make sure to set aside most of my budget for glass.

[n_maher]

I like this thread for many reasons. And here's my $.02...If I were buying today, I would make sure to set aside most of my budget for glass.

Ehhh, I'm not sure I agree. It's not that I think glass should be a secondary consideration but I still don't have as much invested in glass as my D80 body cost. I think a vast majority of hobbyist shooters could live long, happy photographic lives with say a D90 body and a 18-200 VR lens. The body would run you ~$800, the lens ~$760. So my advice would be to look at it more from a 50/50 perspective rather than a majority directed at either purchase. Hell, most would probably be just fine with the D90 kit that includes the 18-105 VR lens at just a tick over $1000.

[Salt Peanuts]

Yeah, I've been seeing some nice deals on used D90 packages.

I'm going to wait for PMA and WPPI to conclude, to see if anyone introduces new products and possible price reduction on existing products.

[n_maher]

Haj,

At the rate models are introduced you're always going to feel like you're overpaying. As long as you're not buying the day something comes out you're probably not doing badly, IMO, so just find something you like, buy it, and then ignore the temptation to see what it's currently selling for. Odds are whatever you buy is going to be phased out and upgraded, retooled or whatever within 12mo. It's borderline insane what Nikon and Cannon have been up to for the last 5 or 6 years and I don't see how it can continue.

[Salt Peanuts]

Good point Nate. Kinda reminds me of time when I used to build my own PCs - new stuff kept coming out as I was doing the initial research.

I'm hoping to go to another camera shop this weekend, after attending a diaper workshop (yes, diaper workshop).

Edited February 17, 2010 by Salt Peanuts

[The Monkey]

A fast lens makes a big, big difference.

[Knuckledragger]

Personally, I think ever owner of a DSLR with an APS-C sized sensor should own a 35mm F/2 and 50mm F/1.8 (or 1.4). I'd say the same for a full frame sensor, except for maybe subbing an 85mm F/1.8 for the 50mm.

[The Monkey]

Agree. I have the 50mm. 35mm is next.

[episiarch]

Ehhh, I'm not sure I agree. It's not that I think glass should be a secondary consideration but I still don't have as much invested in glass as my D80 body cost. I think a vast majority of hobbyist shooters could live long, happy photographic lives with say a D90 body and a 18-200 VR lens. The body would run you ~$800, the lens ~$760. So my advice would be to look at it more from a 50/50 perspective rather than a majority directed at either purchase. Hell, most would probably be just fine with the D90 kit that includes the 18-105 VR lens at just a tick over $1000.

I pretty much agree. We have the D90 with the 18-200 VR (and SB400 flash) and it's a terrific rig. But I could pretty easily make do with the 18-105 VR. I was pretty darn content with my old Canon rig and the 17-85 IS, even. So while I ultimately did divide my bucks roughly 50-50, really the higher end of the zoom range was something I could have done without if I'd felt squeezed. Actually so was the fancier body. A D40 with 18-105 VR would have met my needs very adequately, not that it's not nice to have the stronger rig that I do have.

[Filburt]

Here's my late-to-the-game advice...

Really, nowadays, any of the dSLRs have adequate image quality for taking excellent amateur photography. That is not going to be the limiting factor. So, what you should probably be looking at is principally (a) what lens system you want to buy into (because, long term, that's what will occupy most of your investment if you continue to want to expand your usage), and ( which camera's design is intuitive and comfortable for you to the point that it least hinders your photography.

I've used the GF1 and EP1 and thought they were both fine cameras. However, I tend to prefer an optical viewfinder and so that would probably keep me from investing in that system. Secondly, the 3:2 system dSLRs have more lenses available and there are a decent amount of third-party, good quality, versatile lenses available for those systems. So, for me, I find it to favor going that direction. Consider issues such as this. I am not saying you will or ought to feel the same about these things, but these are the sorts of questions you should probably be asking yourself.