So if you were considering "moving up" to a DSLR .........

[MikeRC]

And wanted to keep the whole package below $1,500.

 

Some history. I go through periods of really loving photography. But I finally gave up on my 35mm SLR because with the standard 50mm lens, a fast 28mm wide angle and 80-150 zoom it was just getting too heavy and bulky to lug around. Especially hiking. I am at the age where I just don't appreciate carrying a few more pounds for a few great pictures. So I've played around with digital for the last 8 years. Right now I have an Olympus 5060, which is a great 5MP camera. ED lens, wide angle down to 27mm equivalent and takes 40.5 mm filters directly on the lens.

 

I almost exclusively shoot outdoors, much of it in the mountains where a wider dynamic range helps. Haze and polarizing filters really help. Gotta improve my winter pictures with a better DR, bracketing and maybe ND filters.

 

But I also have a little Canon Digital Elph with image stabilization and I can see that IS (or VR in Nikon speak) is worth the move.

 

And moving to a larger format sensor with larger glass seems the right thing to do to improve quality. And the DSLR's have shrunk enough that they are not as intimidating as they once were. Especially with only two lenses needed to cover the entire (SLR equivalent) 35 to 300 mm range. I know, there may be a single lens that covers that range but it would seem to have unacceptable distortion levels.

 

Don't point me to review sites, I've scoured them all. I'm looking for personal experience here. I've narrowed it down to:

• Nikon D60 with VR lenses - new system but looks promising, gets expensive due to VR in the lens
• Olympus E-510 - smallest DSLR, many great features, wide range of lenses, but less vivid pictures
• Canon Digital Rebel xTi - popular system, wide range of IS lenses

I would also consider the Sony alpha series if anyone has experience with them.

 

Opinions welcome.

 

Mike Cassidy

[Matts_12GS]

Mike,

I just bought a Nikon D40x in 10.2MP. It came with 2 kit lenses (18-55 and 70-300 Nikkor autofocus lenses) although the 70-300 is a Nikkor AF-G lens that will not autofocus with this camera body.

 

I got that, a 4GB SD card, cheap carrying case and tripod, 2 extra life batteries, a 12v charger for the batteries and extended warranty, a couple polarizing and UV filters, cleaning kits, blah, blah for $950.

 

I've since added a 55-200VR Nikkor lens, remote shutter release and a pelican case for about another $300.

 

I love the camera, it's fairly light, has a smaller form factor and does what I want it to do. With the 200mm VR lens on it I had no issue traveling or lugging it around w/me and it weighs about as much as my old 35mm SLR w/an 80-200 zoom.

 

One thing to avoid, don't buy one off eBay as Nikon doesn't recognize those "Gray Market" cameras for warranty issues. It has to come from a dealer. So, I found a deal on eBay and then called the dealer and asked to order one that way after the auction ended!

[Boffin]

I love my Alpha 100 but it is a bit noisy at high ISOs. The newer 700 is much much better inthis respect. I also like the look of the new Alpha 300 with its 14.2 megapixels, and like the others, in-body anti-shake.

 

That said, do you still have 35mm lenses? If so I would stick to the same brand so as to maximise choice whilst minimising outlay.

 

Otherwise, Canaon has consistently had the lowest noise sensors (The Alpha 700 is a little bit better but has noise reduction on-sensor and some want the option of unadulterated sensor output).

 

Andy

[Aluminum_Butt]

I've got a Rebel XTI, and love it. Aside from the kit lens, I also added a Canon 28-135 IS/USM and a Canon 70-300 IS/USM. They're both nice lenses that get good reviews, but they're in the f4 - f5.6 range, versus the Canon "L" glass that operates in the f2.8 range at 4x the price.

 

Like VR, IS in the Canon line definitely adds some $$$.

 

The 28-135 (48-225 equivalent) is a great all-around lens. If I want to take just one, that's the one.

 

One key for me was the ability to buffer several shots in order to catch our kids in sporting events. It will buffer up to 27 shots at 3 fps (in jpeg mode). The self cleaning sensor is cool stuff.

 

It will always be a better camera than I am a photographer.

[Art..]

Have you considered buying the body you want, and using Sigma lenses to save a little cash?

[Whip]

http://www.digicombos.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=24&Click=2&gclid=CJGjnMGX9JECFQVvlgodTVvWwA

[Francois_Dumas]

Wow, wish they were that cheap here !

I can't advise, am still with me old D70 and 6 Mp..... but I love it, apart from the anual cleaning of the chip......

[AdventurePoser]

I have an EOS 20D which is a phenom. camera. Now I am waiting for a live action/tilt swivel viewer, like many Canon point and shoots have.

 

When this comes out (look springtime?) like fat on a mother in law...I'll be all over a new Canon Eos 40D!

 

Cheers,

Steve in So Cal

[RonStewart]

Why not Pentax, Mike? They have a couple of upgraded models (K20D and K200D) coming out this month that I am considering in order to salvage my old lenses and flash.

[Timmer]

With the new Canon XSi coming out in April, XTi prices should drop - it might be worth waiting.

 

My nephew uses an XTi with a Tamron 18-250 and he gets very respectable photos out of it. I would couple that with a Canon EF-S 10-22mm super wide and call it a day and be close to $1500.

 

I would NOT have said this 3 months ago. But after using Live View in the 10X closeup mode to fine tune the focus while photographing the recent lunar eclipse, I am a believer. Unfortunately, buying a DSLR with live view would upset your $1500 budget limit.

[subvet]

http://www.digicombos.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=24&Click=2&gclid=CJGjnMGX9JECFQVvlgodTVvWwA

 

what's your experience been like with these guys?

[kcscout]

I have a Canon 20D. And, I too, think it's an awesome camera. I've used it in some extremes - mostly hot, dusty - and it's never failed to deliver. Digital doesn't necessarily mean lighter.

 

My bias is very much on the Canon side of the fence. That said, I'm going to suggest that you get a used body and spend some money on lenses that will hold their value. Then, if 3-5 years down the road you decide either - this isn't for me or I'm really liking this, you can:

OPTION 1: Sell the body, which since you bought it used, probably hasn't lost too much in value or didn't cost you much to begin with AND sell the lenses for a slight loss (because you bought good lenses and they hold their value).

 

OPTION 2: Keep the body as a back-up. Upgrade to a newer body (you've had a couple of years to save) and mate the new body to the good lenses.

 

2 cents... from me to you.

[Joel]

I would also consider the Sony alpha series if anyone has experience with them.

 

When I was camera shopping last fall, I was leaning toward an alpha but saw a few reviews indicating that their image quality didn't measure up to Sony's higher end models that are not SLR. That will probably change with subsequent models, but at the time it was enough to lead me to another choice. SLR wasn't that important to me, so I chose the (now discontinued, despite its popularity among foto geeks) DSC-R1.

[Whip]

http://www.digicombos.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=24&Click=2&gclid=CJGjnMGX9JECFQVvlgodTVvWwA

 

what's your experience been like with these guys?

 

I have no experience with "these guys".....I paid twice that much for my D-80.

 

 

 

 

Whip

[MikeRC]

Thanks everyone:

 

This quest started when I got interested in a wider zoom fixed lens camera. The Panasonic DMC-FZ50 (12x zoom) really impressed me. I liked the manual/stepless zoom and built in IS with high quality Leica aspherical/ED glass. And an articulated LCD screen, which I have found particularly helpful for ground level or "above the crowd" shots with the 5060.

 

But the cost, size and weight was getting close to the Olympus E-510, Canon XTi or Nikon D40 (with standard 3 to 4x zoom lens).

 

Although I don't have to buy from a Canadian retailer, warranty issues are always easier. And their prices are coming more in line with US prices.

 

I really like the color from the Nikon cameras, and I can get the D60 with the 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR lenses for under $1100. The D80 with the same two lenses is about $250 more. Or a D40x with 24-135 VR for about the $1000. I tried a D40x with and w/o the VR on and above 100mm there is less "shake" while composing the shot.

 

It seems to me that the consumer level Canon lenses are lighter, larger and 1/2 an f stop slower for an equal zoom to the Nikon. But there are some pretty impressive promotions on.

 

I'm still not sure about the Sony, but thanks for the thumbs up Andy.

 

Art and Tim; I'm not sure if the Sigma or Tamron lenses work with the autofocus of the Canon or Nikon.

 

And the Olympus E-510 is the only one of those with Live View and IS in the camera. So as long as it is a Zuiko 4/3 format lens it will work with the body. I'm just not convinced the 4/3 format is quite as good - not as many companies competing to refine it. But they are heavily discounted - I can get an E-510 with 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 and 40-150mm F4.0-5.6 Zuiko Digital Lens for less then $750.

 

Sam, I'm not sure that spending big on the lenses and getting a used or discontinued body is the way I want to go. What if Canon decides to go away from the mount/autofocus with their next generation fo bodies?

 

Keep the suggestions coming in.

 

Mike Cassidy

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Mike,

I went with a Nikon D40 with the 2 lens set you describe, I wanted more but that is what I could afford at the time. I have since added some glass, Nikon 70-300 VR and a Sigma 10-20mm super wide.

 

After some time with the camera, I have no real complaints other than the 3-point autofocus on the D40 is a little limited. I'll be adding a D-80 body as soon as I come up with a few more ducats. I lust after a D300 but the price is out of the question at the present time.

 

The main issue I have with the camera is that the "kit" has grown large enough to take up a good chunk of the volume of my E460 top box and requires a much more substantial tripod than my little Canon 40D, which I just toss in the tank bag. The Manfredo tripod I bought has to be strapped to the rack.

 

I'll resolve all this but, I think, when traveling on the bike, I'll be limited to just one body and maybe the 2 smaller lenses. I doubt I'll be doing many more flyby shots though. Even with the little 18-55 on there, I just don't see hanging this out off the side of the bike and it doesn't work well as a one handed camera if you have to shoot "leftie".

[Burt]

I bought a Canon 30D kit from Norman Camera in Grand Rapids, Michigan a couple of months ago. At the time they had reduced the price of the kit from $1279 to $999. I see now its back up to $1279. Its still a pretty good deal at that price. Here is a link to their site on the kit. They have a store in Kalamazoo too. The lens that comes with the kit is a 17-85 4-5.6. Its a decent lens, but I'd like to get a couple of faster lenses in the future. The store recommends the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I've been very happy with the 30D.

 

http://tinyurl.com/39569n

[kcscout]

I have 4 lenses in the mix with my 20D:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm

Tamron SP 90mm (1:1 Macro)

Tamron LD 70-300mm

Tamron XR DiII LD 18-200mm

 

The Tamron are fully compatible (focus, exposure...) with Canon.

 

Good luck shopping.

[Ken H.]

Canon Rebel XTi - Has had to be repaired 3 times. It's gotten to the point where we have to carry a point & shoot also to be sure we can take a photo when we want to. We're about ready to pitch the thing in the river.

[MikeRC]

Thanks everyone:

 

Ron, I like the weather resistance of the Pentax's but the image quality doesn't seem to have been the same with the K10D as Nikon/Canon/Olympus. Also nice to be able to use AA batteries in a pinch. If I delay the decision for 6 months the K20D/K200D will be in the hunt.

 

Ed, the D60 is also a three zone autofocus (vs 11 zone in the D80), so that is a consideration. One neat trick on the D60 is the viewfinder actually lights up which of the three zones it is using for exposure. I can see where lens "collections" can start.

 

Sam: Thanks for the info about autofocus on the Tamron lenses. I'll check that out more. Maybe a 40D is possible.

 

Ken: Sorry about your experience with the XTi. Different sources give different ratings for repair histories. JD Power likes the Nikons, Consumer Reports dislikes the Nikons.

 

Mike Cassidy

[David]

Mike, I'm glad to see you doing this. You're a very gifted photographer, and I think your stuff will even be better now. Hang onto your film stuff, though--there's something about it that feeds the soul in a way that digital will not. I've recently been shooting with my Mamiya 7 and my Nikon 35ti again, and it's been invigorating.

 

Each of the main two brands--Nikon and Canon--maintain a close competitive edge. Right now Nikon has a legitimate claim to less noise at high ISOs, but I don't see any other advantage. When I got into digital in a heavy (as in expensive way), I had to make a choice that I would live with for a long time. I'd owned many Nikon/Nikkormat cameras, and not a single Canon, but it was clear (to me) that Canon was typically ahead in the game, and Nikon would come out with their best thing, only to match what Canon already had. I have a full 1DsMarkII system with L lenses (save one off-brand lens that I've been happy with). No looking back for me. The quality, support, lens selection, technology make me very comfortable with the choice. I'll have the camera a long, long time, and I'm thrilled with it.

 

Both of our sons have the XTi and I'm very impressed with that camera.

 

I guess the good news is that it's hard to make a bad choice. But in your shoes, the only contender outside of Canon/Nikon I'd look at is Olympus. They are different and have exceptional lenses. The others are just not even in the same league.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

The very thing that influenced me to go Nikon was the fact that I already owned a fairly broad selection of Nikon lenses from my film cameras. Two I don't really want to give up in particular were the 50 1.2 and the 105 micro. For low light natural portraits that 50 (85 or so on the D camera) is perfect for low light portraits and the macro capabilities on that 105 are astounding. Both are also tack sharp. I give up auto focus and in-camera metering using these lenses but, don't need 'em in either situation. The real beauty of the digital cameras is their ability to take multiple exposures at 0 cost. Bracket like crazy and sort it all out later in Light Room.

[ian408]

I guess the good news is that it's hard to make a bad choice. But in your shoes, the only contender outside of Canon/Nikon I'd look at is Olympus. They are different and have exceptional lenses. The others are just not even in the same league.

 

Very true.

[MikeRC]

David I'm speachless. Thanks for the compliment and nudge along. I get inspired when I see your photos. Same with Bob and Larry. And many others on this site. Sometimes bmwst.com could be relabeled "BMW Photo Touring". In fact Larry's photos of his trip last summer were part of the drive to move on to a DSLR.

 

I still have that problem with weight and bulk to balance against range and features. My back aches when I think of carrying an extra pound of photo equipment up to the top of a mountain.

 

Thanks for all the tips people. More shopping to be done before riding season starts.

 

Mike Cassidy

[GregB]

It is amazing just how good all the DSLRs are. If I was really concerned about hauling one frequently on a motorcycle, I would go with the Olympus E-410 since it is so tiny and light. BUT that gives up the image stabilization that you stated was important. The E-510 is light and small, but not tiny like the E-410. If live view and image stabilization are musts then the E-510 is the only current choice although others are imminent (possibly just out).

I have a tough time carrying any DSLR on a motorcycle or hiking, etc, even one as light as my E-1 so I bought a Canon G9 as a very sophisticated camera that is pocket size.

Just like motorcycles, there is no universal best choice. However, it is hard to make a bad choice! Hard to go wrong with any Canon, Nikon, or Olympus DSLR.

[velomoto]

Mike - check out this web site. I like his candor in the body and lens recommendations.

KenRockwell.com

 

Ken has some interesting tests comparing cell phone camera shots to that of some very high end DSLR gear. For certain pic's it truly is amazing how good the cheap gear will perform.

 

Long story short - Ken is highly biased to Nikon gear and will steer you to the D40 over the newer D40X thru D80X. IMO the primary reason to go with Nikon is the one size fit's all 18-200 lens. Sure it's not perfect, and certainly not a fast lens, but if you're looking for one lens to capture a lot of different shots an 18-200 zoom is worth the look. One caution on this lens - many have "lens creep" which means if the lens is vertical the zoom will change. Some of the 18-200's do not "creep" but many do. DAMHIK

 

If you're looking to shoot sports and want less shot-to-shot, then shop Canon over Nikon. Until one gets to the D300, Canon models are faster.

 

The low end 18-55 Canon lens is poorly reviewed on Canon sites. The low cost Nikon 18-55 generally receives much higher marks for performance. Both get low marks for "quality" but what do you expect for a $100 lens?

 

If you want a system and expect to someday upgrade to "pro" glass, IMO Canon gets much higher marks. But I'm talking 'bout the "L" series lenses which go for $1K and up.

 

In any case, Ken makes some interesting arguments for the lower resolution sensor of the D40 (sensors are larger and farther apart as the sensor "chip" size is identical in D40 and D40x - it's just the number of pixels which differ). Larger and better isolated sensors (in theory) perform better (less noise and faster) than small and more closely packed sensors. Conversely, if one has more bits of data then one does not need to blow up the picture as much so there is less grain (noise).

 

Bottom line, the D40 is inexpensive, small, light weight, well featured and has a very fast flash sync speed. But like I said above - consider a Canon if shots-per-second is a major consideration.

[Hardware]

I have a Canon D350 - European marketed version of the Rebel XT.

 

I also have an old Canon A-1.

 

The Rebel line of DSLR's are good cameras. Here's a copy of a post I put on another site regarding digital cameras:

 

Last count I think we have three digital cameras.

 

First one was an Olympus we bought while on vacation. Takes great pics but it's slow.

 

Then the wife bought a tiny Casio - about the size of a credit card and as thick as maybe 5 cards?? Works great too but is slow.

 

We were at a mounted archery tournament in Japan with the horses galloping past us only a couple of feet away. None of our digital cameras were able to catch any action shots. A friend was there with his Canon Rebel D300 (Rebel) SLR and he got some of the most amazing pics I've ever seen. Really, some of his shots should be in National Geographic. That sold me on the Canon digital SLR and I now have a Canon D350 (basically a Rebel XT).

 

I did carry it in a magnetic mount tank bag a couple of times on my Hayabusa with no issues. I've also carried it in the tail bag on my RT with no problems. The D350 took the pic I use for my avatar. I have added the battery grip (the Camera body itself is small in my mitts) as this also gives you an additional shutter release for portrait stuff - and increases battery life.

 

For X-mas the wife bought me a Canon 75-300 zoom lens.

 

I mention all this because you have a background in SLR cameras. I still have and periodically use a Canon A-1. If you really aren't interested in getting back into the SLR world I would still recommend Canon. That said, I have a Nikon D80 digital SLR with various lenses at work and you really can't go wrong with either brand.

 

I think either is top-notch, I just find Canon products to be more...intuitively designed for me...but if you like Nikon, check out some of their non-SLR models.

[Keith S]

Mike

I too looked at upgrading my equipment for almost the same reason as you. After my Yukon trip last summer I was disapointed with the results. I was using a Canon S3 IS which is not a bad camera for it's size. I bought the Canon 40D but didn't like dealing with a croped (1.6) sensor. I also take mostly outdoor/lanscape photos and the crop pushes the lenses out too far. So I went all the way and purchased the Canon 5D with the 24-70 L 2.8 USM and the 70-200 L 2.8 IS USM. Bulky as hell but well worth the extra space they take.

With the rebates last fall I got back $1200.00

 

Keith