Canon/Nikon, New/Used?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=, Oct 19, 2006.

  1. OK, no religious wars, please...

    We are thinking of getting a dSLR, and initially cirling on Canon or
    Nikon due to availability of used fixed-length lenses.

    We will be looking at the lower end, 350d/400d/D50/D70s/D80 and spend a
    bit on lenses.

    Use is family stuff, including my son's football (soccer). I like to
    use available light, ie lenses that can be used at f/2.8 or better are
    nice.

    What I would like is:
    - fast autofocus
    - low shutter lag (I have given up on our Canon G3 for the 2 first
    reasons)
    - good low-light performance

    >From brief fondling, it seems the Nikons fit my hands better. But what

    about the more expensive Canons, perhaps 2nd-hand?

    Or are used dSLRs a no-no?

    I am at present using a Nikon FA + 35/2.0 + 105/2.5, that's what I am
    comparing to.

    Any 3rd-party zooms worth considering as alternative to the kit lenses?
    Or are they so cheap you may as well have them?

    As far as I can see, I am likely to want upgrades on computer (Mac)
    front too, there are plenty of places for the money to go :-(

    TIA

    Martin
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=, Oct 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Martin Sørensen" <> wrote:
    >OK, no religious wars, please...


    Ask about religious topics, and you *will* get religious wars...

    >We are thinking of getting a dSLR, and initially cirling on Canon or
    >Nikon due to availability of used fixed-length lenses.
    >
    >We will be looking at the lower end, 350d/400d/D50/D70s/D80 and spend a
    >bit on lenses.


    Add the Pentax K100D to that list. I have not used it, or even
    seen one, but it appears that it might fit your needs rather well.

    >Use is family stuff, including my son's football (soccer). I like to
    >use available light, ie lenses that can be used at f/2.8 or better are
    >nice.
    >
    >What I would like is:
    >- fast autofocus
    >- low shutter lag (I have given up on our Canon G3 for the 2 first
    >reasons)
    >- good low-light performance
    >
    >>From brief fondling, it seems the Nikons fit my hands better. But what

    >about the more expensive Canons, perhaps 2nd-hand?
    >
    >Or are used dSLRs a no-no?


    Depends on how patient you are and whether you have the knack
    for picking out the "right" used item. If you are careful,
    "used" equals a "much better deal". If you get the wrong one it
    is an expensive learning experience. :)

    >I am at present using a Nikon FA + 35/2.0 + 105/2.5, that's what I am
    >comparing to.


    Compared to 35mm film, the Nikon digital cameras are similar in
    "feel" and have obvious roots as far as controls, layout, and so
    on. The sensor is smaller than 35mm film and has a 1.5 "crop
    factor". That results in those focal lengths working the same
    53mm and 158mm lenses would on a 35mm camera. Depth-Of-Field is
    a bit wider on the DSLR.

    The biggest advantage of digital, however, is immediate feedback
    on exposure and framing. You can look at the image, and do a
    retake if it is over exposed or Aunt Mary had her mouth open and
    her eyes closed.

    >Any 3rd-party zooms worth considering as alternative to the kit lenses?
    >Or are they so cheap you may as well have them?


    To a great degree you "get what you pay for". The curve is
    exponential though, and adding that last bell or whistle will
    double the price for perhaps a very small boost in performance.
    There are good 3rd party zooms, but they cost as much as Nikon
    lenses with the same bells and whistles.

    Given you want to shoot a fast moving sporting event, fast Auto
    Focus is important, as well as low light capability. I'm not
    sure how much image stabilization would help, or hinder. Perhaps
    no 3rd party lense can match a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR, but
    you pay for that too... (I use an 80-200 f/2.8 AFD ED.)

    The greatest selling point (from my particular religious
    perspective) for the Nikon over Canon is the vast array of older
    lenses that are available. However, the lower end Nikon models
    do not have the mechanical coupling to tell the in-camera light
    meter what the aperture is set at, which greatly reduces the
    functionality with those models. For the pro-model Nikons that
    is not a problem.

    The Pentax camera can also works with an astounding list of
    older lenses. I don't know if Pentax has are similar
    limitations to Nikon's on some versions of the older mounts or
    not. I would want to research that carefully, but given your
    prime interest is certainly going to be with newer Auto Focus
    lenses, it shouldn't be much of a problem.

    The particular advantage the Pentax K100D has is an image
    stabilization system in the camera that works with all of those
    old lenses. You don't have to pay $1600 for a 70-200mm f/2.8
    lense that has VR built in...

    >As far as I can see, I am likely to want upgrades on computer (Mac)
    >front too, there are plenty of places for the money to go :-(


    Going to a digital camera? Get two of the largest disks you
    can find... :)

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Floyd L. Davidson skrev:

    > Add the Pentax K100D to that list. I have not used it, or even
    > seen one, but it appears that it might fit your needs rather well.
    >

    Thanks, will take a look.

    > >Or are used dSLRs a no-no?

    >
    > Depends on how patient you are and whether you have the knack
    > for picking out the "right" used item. If you are careful,
    > "used" equals a "much better deal". If you get the wrong one it
    > is an expensive learning experience. :)
    >

    OK - price has to be good.

    > >I am at present using a Nikon FA + 35/2.0 + 105/2.5, that's what I am
    > >comparing to.

    >
    > Compared to 35mm film, the Nikon digital cameras are similar in
    > "feel" and have obvious roots as far as controls, layout, and so
    > on. The sensor is smaller than 35mm film and has a 1.5 "crop
    > factor". That results in those focal lengths working the same
    > 53mm and 158mm lenses would on a 35mm camera. Depth-Of-Field is
    > a bit wider on the DSLR.
    >

    I feel the changes since the FA of the 80es are huge anyway :)

    I have seen the DOF-claim before, and I do not understand it. If you
    reduce the size of the sensor, you also reduce the size of acceptable
    out-of-focus blur, aka DOF. For geometrical reasons, I would therefore
    expect DOF to be the same for a given angle of view, ie a dSLR with a
    50mm has same DOF as a 35mm with a 75mm. If I am wrong, please show me
    why!

    > The biggest advantage of digital, however, is immediate feedback
    > on exposure and framing. You can look at the image, and do a
    > retake if it is over exposed or Aunt Mary had her mouth open and
    > her eyes closed.
    >

    Oh, I can see that. And it is easy to email family & friends.

    > >Any 3rd-party zooms worth considering as alternative to the kit lenses?
    > >Or are they so cheap you may as well have them?

    >
    > To a great degree you "get what you pay for". The curve is
    > exponential though, and adding that last bell or whistle will
    > double the price for perhaps a very small boost in performance.
    > There are good 3rd party zooms, but they cost as much as Nikon
    > lenses with the same bells and whistles.
    >

    I was considering that normal area, like 18-70 or 18-55.

    > The greatest selling point (from my particular religious
    > perspective) for the Nikon over Canon is the vast array of older
    > lenses that are available. However, the lower end Nikon models
    > do not have the mechanical coupling to tell the in-camera light
    > meter what the aperture is set at, which greatly reduces the
    > functionality with those models. For the pro-model Nikons that
    > is not a problem.
    >

    Well, the bodies I consider effectively do not work with my old lenses,
    I am aware of that.

    > The Pentax camera can also works with an astounding list of
    > older lenses. I don't know if Pentax has are similar
    > limitations to Nikon's on some versions of the older mounts or
    > not. I would want to research that carefully, but given your
    > prime interest is certainly going to be with newer Auto Focus
    > lenses, it shouldn't be much of a problem.
    >
    > The particular advantage the Pentax K100D has is an image
    > stabilization system in the camera that works with all of those
    > old lenses. You don't have to pay $1600 for a 70-200mm f/2.8
    > lense that has VR built in...
    >

    Worth counting in.

    > >As far as I can see, I am likely to want upgrades on computer (Mac)
    > >front too, there are plenty of places for the money to go :-(

    >
    > Going to a digital camera? Get two of the largest disks you
    > can find... :)
    >

    Yeah...
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=, Oct 19, 2006
    #3
  4. =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=

    tomm42 Guest

    On Oct 19, 4:58 am, "Martin Sørensen" <>
    wrote:
    > OK, no religious wars, please...
    >
    > We are thinking of getting a dSLR, and initially cirling on Canon or
    > Nikon due to availability of used fixed-length lenses.
    >
    > We will be looking at the lower end, 350d/400d/D50/D70s/D80 and spend a
    > bit on lenses.
    >
    > Use is family stuff, including my son's football (soccer). I like to
    > use available light, ie lenses that can be used at f/2.8 or better are
    > nice.
    >
    > What I would like is:
    > - fast autofocus
    > - low shutter lag (I have given up on our Canon G3 for the 2 first
    > reasons)
    > - good low-light performance
    >
    > >From brief fondling, it seems the Nikons fit my hands better. But whatabout the more expensive Canons, perhaps 2nd-hand?

    >
    > Or are used dSLRs a no-no?
    >
    > I am at present using a Nikon FA + 35/2.0 + 105/2.5, that's what I am
    > comparing to.
    >
    > Any 3rd-party zooms worth considering as alternative to the kit lenses?
    > Or are they so cheap you may as well have them?
    >
    > As far as I can see, I am likely to want upgrades on computer (Mac)
    > front too, there are plenty of places for the money to go :-(
    >
    > TIA
    >
    > Martin


    There are plenty of folks who buy DSLRs and either don't like them or
    want the next latest and greatest. So there are lightly used cameras in
    the market place. Buy from a reputable dealer, two that come to mind
    are B&H photo and KEH camera both on the web. There are a few companies
    that sell factory demos too Cameta camera for one. Buy a camera that
    has little shown use Excellent or mint ratings. If the outside of a
    camera is beat chances are the insides are too. Ebay is OK but you want
    to be able to return the camera if it doesn't work properly.
    Also older AI and AIS lenses will work on Nikon's D70, D80 but won't
    meter on this camera, pre AI lenses won't work at all and can damage
    Nikon digitals. The D200 is the lowest camera that will fully accept
    older non AF lenses (AI, AIS). Remeber to multiply the focal length of
    any lens you are looking at by 1.5 (Nikon, Pentax) 1.6 (Canon) to get
    the effective focal length. This reaks havoc with wide angle, a very WA
    (say a 20mm) lens becomes
    a middleing WA equivelent of 30mm or 32mm.
    That said Canon, Nikon , or Pentax make quality cameras and have good
    lenses. On the level you are looking your existing lenses probably
    shouldn't be taken into consideration, though both lenses are
    excellent quality lenses.

    Good luck
    Tom
     
    tomm42, Oct 19, 2006
    #4
  5. =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=

    Annika1980 Guest

    Martin Sørensen wrote:
    > OK, no religious wars, please...
    >
    > We are thinking of getting a dSLR, and initially cirling on Canon or
    > Nikon due to availability of used fixed-length lenses.
    >
    > We will be looking at the lower end, 350d/400d/D50/D70s/D80 and spend a
    > bit on lenses.
    >
    > Use is family stuff, including my son's football (soccer). I like to
    > use available light, ie lenses that can be used at f/2.8 or better are
    > nice.


    Get a Canon body with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Yes, that lens is a bit
    pricey but there's a good reason for that. It's probably the sharpest
    zoom in the world.
     
    Annika1980, Oct 19, 2006
    #5
  6. =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=

    acl Guest

    Martin Sørensen wrote:
    >
    > I have seen the DOF-claim before, and I do not understand it. If you
    > reduce the size of the sensor, you also reduce the size of acceptable
    > out-of-focus blur, aka DOF. For geometrical reasons, I would therefore
    > expect DOF to be the same for a given angle of view, ie a dSLR with a
    > 50mm has same DOF as a 35mm with a 75mm. If I am wrong, please show me
    > why!


    Hello,
    The answer is buried in here:
    http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/65531552
    and
    http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/65531469
    (I put these there during a "discussion" that took place here some time
    ago; maybe you can find it in Google groups, it was titled "a step
    backwards" or something like that). Sorry for the presentation, it was
    not meant to be made public.

    The idea is that you need to enlarge more (A times more, where A>1 is
    the crop factor), thus, as you said, the acceptable circle of confusion
    is smaller by a factor A; also, to get the same angle of view, you need
    a longer focal length (by the same factor A). And the distance bet
    closest and furthest point of acceptable focus ends up being scaled by
    A. All this is because the DOF depends on the focal length f and circle
    of confusion c as const*c/f^2. Since c->c/A and f->f/A, blah blah. I
    think it is not too hard to see geometrically why f appears
    quadratically and c linearly.

    Anyway, you can just use the eqn for DOF I use and repeat everything,
    you'll quickly see what is going on. Much easier this way than me going
    on and on.

    Or pick up a compact digital (with very small sensors), and shoot
    something at 35mm-equivalent 50mm f/3.5 (say). Compare the results to
    film. DOF is most certainly larger. It's not just a claim.
     
    acl, Oct 19, 2006
    #6
  7. "Annika1980" <> wrote:
    >Get a Canon body with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Yes, that lens is a bit
    >pricey but there's a good reason for that. It's probably the sharpest
    >zoom in the world.


    Have to admit that is pretty close to being true fact.

    The only lenses that seem to do better are the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8
    and the older 80-200mm f/2.8.

    MTF curves for the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS:
    http://www.photodo.com/topic_15.html

    MTF curves for the Nikon AF-S VR-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 G (IF):
    http://www.photodo.com/topic_16.html

    Test results on the Canon 70-200mm (non IS version):
    http://www.photodo.com/product_256_p4.html

    Test results on the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AFS (non VR):
    http://www.photodo.com/product_150_p4.html


    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 19, 2006
    #7
  8. =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=

    Ben Brugman Guest


    > I feel the changes since the FA of the 80es are huge anyway :)
    >
    > I have seen the DOF-claim before, and I do not understand it. If you
    > reduce the size of the sensor, you also reduce the size of acceptable
    > out-of-focus blur, aka DOF. For geometrical reasons, I would therefore
    > expect DOF to be the same for a given angle of view, ie a dSLR with a
    > 50mm has same DOF as a 35mm with a 75mm. If I am wrong, please show me
    > why!
    >


    A dSLR has 1.5 crop factor.
    If you whant to think geometrical to explain the DOF issue, that is an
    excelent choice.

    You want to keep the angle of view the same, so you reduce the
    focal length of the lens with the same factor 1.5.
    But you also have to scale down the distance to the subject with
    1.5 and to keep the same endresult you have to shrink the subject
    and the rest of the world with a factor 1.5.
    So if you schrink everything (lens, aperature, sensorarea, subjectdistance,
    the subject and the world) with a factor of 1.5 you get exactly the
    same picture with the same DOF.

    But in real live the subject is not shrunk, the world is not shrunk,
    and the distance to the subject is not shrunk. And as we all know
    the DOF increases with the distance, and it does increase more
    than lineair. Because creating enough distance infinity will fall
    within the DOF.
    (That's also the reason why in 'old' films, if they shot miniatures,
    they look very fake, because they did not shrink the camera's,
    so they shrunk everything but not the camera, therefore they only
    get very limited DOF. (Other fysical things did not shrink either).).

    So with geometrical thinking you have to include all 'sizes', also the
    size of the subject and the size of the distance.

    Or to put it more simply, you make a drawing which is very correct
    of the situation. (sensor, the projection on the sensor, the lens, the
    subject). And you enlarge or shrink this drawing, everything will stay
    correct. But not that also the subject and subject distance get's
    enlarged or shrunk in the same way.

    I know it's a bit weird explanations, but I hope this has cleared the
    problem for you.

    Greetings,
    Ben brugman
     
    Ben Brugman, Oct 19, 2006
    #8
  9. Ben Brugman skrev:

    <snip detailed explanation>

    > I know it's a bit weird explanations, but I hope this has cleared the
    > problem for you.
    >

    It did! Thank you very much.

    /Martin
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=, Oct 20, 2006
    #9
  10. acl skrev:

    > The idea is that you need to enlarge more (A times more, where A>1 is
    > the crop factor), thus, as you said, the acceptable circle of confusion
    > is smaller by a factor A; also, to get the same angle of view, you need
    > a longer focal length (by the same factor A). And the distance bet
    > closest and furthest point of acceptable focus ends up being scaled by
    > A. All this is because the DOF depends on the focal length f and circle
    > of confusion c as const*c/f^2. Since c->c/A and f->f/A, blah blah. I
    > think it is not too hard to see geometrically why f appears
    > quadratically and c linearly.
    >
    > Anyway, you can just use the eqn for DOF I use and repeat everything,
    > you'll quickly see what is going on. Much easier this way than me going
    > on and on.
    >

    I think I get it now. And my back-of-envelope calculation tells me that
    with a crop factor of 1.5, we are talking roughly 1 f-stop worth of
    DOF.

    Bummer. One of the things I like about my 105/2.5 is that it is very
    good at isolating things at f/4, and still is very sharp. To me, lenses
    that needs stopping down to f/8 to give a sharp image is a bit of a
    joke.

    Thanks, Martin
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=, Oct 20, 2006
    #10
  11. In article <>,
    =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?= <> wrote:
    >Bummer. One of the things I like about my 105/2.5 is that it is very
    >good at isolating things at f/4, and still is very sharp.


    That doesn't change. The 105 will remain good at isolating things at f/4
    and it will probably remain sharp even on a digital camera.

    The problem is that the field of view is such that you probably don't want
    to use it for portraits.

    The equivalent to 105/4 on 35mm is 70/2.8 on DX.

    I think that an 85 is probably the best solution.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 20, 2006
    #11
  12. =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=

    acl Guest

    Philip Homburg wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?= <> wrote:
    >>Bummer. One of the things I like about my 105/2.5 is that it is very
    >>good at isolating things at f/4, and still is very sharp.

    >
    > That doesn't change. The 105 will remain good at isolating things at f/4
    > and it will probably remain sharp even on a digital camera.
    >
    > The problem is that the field of view is such that you probably don't want
    > to use it for portraits.
    >
    > The equivalent to 105/4 on 35mm is 70/2.8 on DX.
    >
    > I think that an 85 is probably the best solution.
    >
    >


    The 90mm f/2.8 (or around there) macros should also be fine for
    portraits (maybe a bit too long).
     
    acl, Oct 20, 2006
    #12
  13. =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=

    Annika1980 Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > "Annika1980" <> wrote:
    > >Get a Canon body with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Yes, that lens is a bit
    > >pricey but there's a good reason for that. It's probably the sharpest
    > >zoom in the world.

    >
    > Have to admit that is pretty close to being true fact.
    >
    > The only lenses that seem to do better are the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8
    > and the older 80-200mm f/2.8.


    Blasphemer!
     
    Annika1980, Oct 20, 2006
    #13
  14. "Annika1980" <> wrote:
    >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> "Annika1980" <> wrote:
    >> >Get a Canon body with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Yes, that lens is a bit
    >> >pricey but there's a good reason for that. It's probably the sharpest
    >> >zoom in the world.

    >>
    >> Have to admit that is pretty close to being true fact.
    >>
    >> The only lenses that seem to do better are the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8
    >> and the older 80-200mm f/2.8.

    >
    >Blasphemer!


    Isn't that pretty much a pattern though? Canon's this or that is
    the best there is, excepting of course for the Nikon models.

    What else is new?

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 20, 2006
    #14
  15. "=?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=" <> writes:

    >I have seen the DOF-claim before, and I do not understand it. If you
    >reduce the size of the sensor, you also reduce the size of acceptable
    >out-of-focus blur, aka DOF. For geometrical reasons, I would therefore
    >expect DOF to be the same for a given angle of view, ie a dSLR with a
    >50mm has same DOF as a 35mm with a 75mm. If I am wrong, please show me
    >why!


    There are multiple ways of describing this, but here's one:

    You're correct that when you reduce the size of the sensor, the
    acceptable circle of confusion size is also reduced. So if you put *the
    same focal length* lens on the 1.5 crop factor DSLR, you actually get only
    2/3 the DOF you'd get with a full-frame camera because of that CoC size
    change.

    But then you'd have only about 2/3 of the field of view, which does not
    give you the same shot. So, instead, you use a lens with about 2/3 the
    focal length on the DSLR compared to the full-frame camera. Now, when
    keeping the image size (and thus the CoC size) the same, and keeping the
    f/number the same, DOF is proportional to one over the *square* of the
    focal length change. For example, switching from 75 to 50 mm lens on
    the same camera gives you 2.25 times the DOF, not 1.5 times as much as
    you might expect.

    In the comparison here, you're changing both focal length and CoC. The
    reduction in focal length by a factor of 1/1.5 gives you 2.25 times the
    DOF, but then a factor of 1.5 of that is taken away by the CoC change.
    So they don't fully cancel, and you still get 1.5 times as much DOF
    while keeping the same field of view and the same f/number.

    Another way of looking at it:

    DOF is inversely proportional to the size of the lens entrance pupil,
    regardless of focal length, as long as you keep the overall field of
    view the same (which means objects stay the same size in the print).
    Suppose you use a 75 mm lens at an aperture of f/4 on a full-frame
    camera; then the entrance pupil is 75/4 = 18.75 mm diameter. If you
    switch to a 50 mm lens on the DSLR to keep the FOV the same, and keep
    the same entrance pupil size, you will keep the same DOF. But a 18.75
    mm entrance pupil on a 50 mm lens is f/2.7, not f/4.

    If you set the 50 mm lens to f/4 as well, the entrance pupil drops to
    12.5 mm in diameter, and then you get 1.5x greater DOF than you would
    with 18.75 mm pupil.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Oct 22, 2006
    #15
  16. > We are thinking of getting a dSLR, and initially cirling on Canon or
    > Nikon due to availability of used fixed-length lenses.
    >
    > We will be looking at the lower end, 350d/400d/D50/D70s/D80 and spend a
    > bit on lenses.
    >
    > Use is family stuff, including my son's football (soccer). I like to
    > use available light, ie lenses that can be used at f/2.8 or better are
    > nice.
    >
    > What I would like is:
    > - fast autofocus
    > - low shutter lag (I have given up on our Canon G3 for the 2 first
    > reasons)
    > - good low-light performance
    >
    >>From brief fondling, it seems the Nikons fit my hands better. But what

    > about the more expensive Canons, perhaps 2nd-hand?
    >
    > Or are used dSLRs a no-no?
    >


    Some care has to be taken when buying second-hand of course. Check that
    nothing is loose and that the sensor is clean and without too many dead
    pixels. The battery may be shot, too; they have a limited lifespan so you'd
    better budget for a new one.

    My advice to you, given your needs as given in your original post, might be
    to consider a not-too-heavily used Canon 1D. This model is definitely built
    to take a licking and keep on ticking (for about 150.000 frames to be
    exact), it has one of the world's finest autofocus systems, and shutter lag
    is basically non-existent. The viewfinder is excellent as well, an often
    overlooked point. The user interface is very good, once you get used to it -
    it is somewhat different from the UI on Canon's consumer models. It is only
    1.25x crop so you get better wide-angle from your lenses. And it goes for
    only around 1000 Euro or even somewhat below that, here in Norway at least.
    As said, the shutter is built to take 150K exposures, so even if a 1D is
    sold with 50K actuations on it, it is barely broken in really.

    Manual focus lenses are a problem with all Canons because the old Canon FD
    lenses won't fit EOS cameras, you can use Nikkors or Pentaxes or just about
    anything via an adapter but manual stop-down shooting is a pain in the neck.
    It is possible, rather than practical, in my book.

    The downsides to the 1D are that it is "only" 4 megapixels (but keep in mind
    that this is basically enough for anything short of wallpaper size, and that
    small RAW files makes for a pleasantly fast workflow on the computer) and
    that high-ISO performance is no more than sufficient. Don't go above 1250
    ISO except in dire emergency, at least that is my experience, and don't
    underexpose. NeatImage is your friend! Battery life is not too good either;
    a couple of third-party spare batteries take care of that. The rear display
    is not exactly excellent either, but is good enough to check composition and
    histogram and that is all you need. Oh, and the camera is big and heavy, 1.5
    kilos. I'd consider this more of an advantage than a disadvantage though, as
    it balances a heavy lens better and gives more stability and vibration
    damping to the entire system (until your arms tire, at least). A DLSR isn't
    pocketable in any case so I don't really consider size and weight much of an
    issue on one.

    I got mine about a year ago and have been happy as a pig in shit ever since.

    >Any 3rd-party zooms worth considering as alternative to the kit lenses?
    >Or are they so cheap you may as well have them?


    Consider the Tamron 28-75 2.8. An absolutely excellent piece of glass,
    light-weight and cheap. You'll probably want to pair it with a wide-angle
    zoom though for an all-round kit, an 18-55, 20-35, 17-40 or some such beast.
    28mm is sufficient for a "short normal to short tele" walkaround on a 1D,
    but probably too narrow on a 1.6 crop. I'm selling mine now, but that's only
    because I got a good deal on a second-hand 24-70 2.8L!
     
    Ståle Sannerud, Oct 22, 2006
    #16
  17. Floyd L. Davidson skrev:
    > "Martin Sørensen" <> wrote:
    > >OK, no religious wars, please...

    >
    > Ask about religious topics, and you *will* get religious wars...
    >
    > >We are thinking of getting a dSLR, and initially cirling on Canon or
    > >Nikon due to availability of used fixed-length lenses.
    > >
    > >We will be looking at the lower end, 350d/400d/D50/D70s/D80 and spend a
    > >bit on lenses.

    >
    > Add the Pentax K100D to that list. I have not used it, or even
    > seen one, but it appears that it might fit your needs rather well.
    >

    I handled the 400d yesterday as I was waiting for prints,and that was
    definately too small for my hands. Havn't tried the Pentax yet, but it
    seems small too.

    To me, the main problem with the small cameras is that my hands stay
    the same.

    /Martin
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=, Oct 25, 2006
    #17
  18. =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=

    Bill Guest

    "Martin Sørensen" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >> Add the Pentax K100D to that list. I have not used it, or even
    >> seen one, but it appears that it might fit your needs rather well.
    >>

    >I handled the 400d yesterday as I was waiting for prints,and that was
    >definately too small for my hands. Havn't tried the Pentax yet, but
    >it
    >seems small too.


    I originally bought the small Canon XT because weight was going to be
    an issue and I figured the small size would be beneficial when
    travelling. But I have since found that ~100 grams and a few
    millimeters is a small price to pay for better comfort, control, and
    ease of use.

    >To me, the main problem with the small cameras is that my hands stay
    >the same.


    An easy fix is to wrap your hands in tight linen for several years.

    :)
     
    Bill, Oct 25, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joseph Miller

    Unreadable file on Canon S 400.I used a I used a

    Joseph Miller, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    475
    Rolf Egil Sølvik
    Jan 13, 2004
  2. All Things Mopar

    Nikon Coolpix 8800 when used with Nikon SB-800 external flash

    All Things Mopar, May 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    949
    Frank ess
    May 27, 2005
  3. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,014
    Joseph Miller
    Jun 7, 2005
  4. gnnyman
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    814
    Scott W
    Jul 5, 2005
  5. network buyer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,192
    network buyer
    Dec 23, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page