Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

for me and for tonyk!!

Adrian

Christian

Before you part with your hard earned, go and see the guys at warehouse express.

Tell them what you want to do, you have had a look on the website and have narrowed it down to Nikon and Canon and ask if you can see both to see what they feel like.

Also ask about lens upgrades etc and they may be able to put you a package together on what you want. They did for me with my Canon.

The showroom only holds certain stock so you may have to wait 24 hours while they get the good from the warehouse, which I believe is in Norwich somewhere.

I have found the Tamron AF70-300 F/4-5.6 Di lens a very good one. £114 for Canon fitment (Jessops was £199)

They take time and explain things to you and will work to your budget. I cannot recommend them enough.

Muska

I'm a Nikon user, i currently have a D80 and hopefully this year i'll be upgrading to a D3.

At the price range you suggest i'd recommend the Canon. My reasons for this are:

The Nikon D40/D40x/D60 all don't have a screen on the top to show you the settings that are being used, something thats very handy and believe me you'll use it.

They all only have 3 focal points on the screen. (the Canon 400D has 9) I really don't know what Nikon were playing at here and i'm sure they would have updated for the D60 but it is not the case.

They all don't have on camera buttons for White balance and ISO. You are forced to go into the menu's to change these settings, again this would annoy me or get over looked and leave you with useless pictures (shooting in RAW is recommended by me)

Now the big one...
They all don't have an internal focus motor drive. This means that you will be restricted on the lenses you can use with the camera that will auto focus. That to me is very important.

What i will say for the Nikons is the entry level DSLR's are very well built and i think to a noticably higher standard than the equivalent Canon. The kit lens that comes with the D60 has been well thought of in reviews, it has performed very well for a 'kit' lens. he Canon kit lens is comsidered poor by contrast)Although the VR function is comsidered a bit of a gimmic at this focal length it will help in low light situations. The arguement there is that if you bought a lens with a wider aperture you would have the same low light ability but a nicer depth of field for your subject. Price becoms the large issue here then.

Lenses go from very cheap to very expensive. They are the difference between nice pictures and amazing photos you would certainly notice the difference, but at a price.

I have the kit lens for my D80 and the difference when using my 85mm f1.4 is astounding. Lenses go up well over £1k.

If i was in your position i would ask myself what i wanted from the camera (much as you have) what i want to take pictures of (as you have) budget and then ask yourself if you will get more into photography. Will you learn about aperture, shutter speed, ISO, white balance etc? Will you only use the camera in AUTO mode from the day you buy it? If you think you will go further then i'd recommend looking at a body that has more features as spending more now will save money in the long run, but that is down to your needs.

I hope some of what i've said has helped. I've by no means said all there is to say about the camera's you've mentioned. If you'd like to discuss it more with me i'd be happy to help, just pm me and we can have a chat over xbox live if you fancy.

Matt.

foreigneRS

i believe that jessops and most other high street and specialist stores will to some extent price match, so take your trade there rather than the internet if you can for the back up and advice

Muska

jessops will price match but they add on the cost of delivery.

frog

I suspect (please don't flame me), that many may have been attracted by the generally slightly lower price of the Canon over the Nikon.
In all honesty, there's a hair's smidgen of a difference between the two in terms of performance, etc... at any given price point. Not a difference that anyone without a keen eye for image detail, etc... would be able to see imo.

I can't recommend either since I have a minolta (now sony). I could suggest you look at sony too, they have built in VR so any lens you buy will have VR, rather than pay the extra for each and every lens

Again, there's not much of a difference between the two/three when it comes to picture quality (being realistic about it).

Just my opinion

Added: As muska said, most of the difference is in how the camera "handles" and behaves in your hands, and that can only be found out by having a test drive

Adrian

Chapelfield Norwich didnt. That's why I went to Warehouse Express (Also in Norwich). Reason Jessops gave was that WE were internet based so couldnt match as they had no overheads, they will only price match bricks and mortar based not WWW. I explained to the manager that wasnt the case, but he wasnt interested.

May be different in other branches, but Norwich at the time were not interested.

theburns1

to be honest if its your first slr then it doesnt matter wot you have, it'll take ages to learn everything your camera can do. i've been taking pictures with a dslr for about 4 years now and i've learnt its not the body of the camera its the lenses that make the picture.

Mr.T

i say canon all the way. But then again its all up to what you want. JUst test a few in a shop and you know what you want.

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

Well, Adrian, looks like Warehouse Express it is. Despite feeling like shit, I dragged myself up to Jessops today and got absolutely ZERO help, despite standing around in there for ages trying to attract attention of a staff member and with £550 in my wallet. Idiots.

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

It does appear from the video link I posted (and someone else kindly posted a similar thing about the Canon), that the Nikon is more feature packed. But is it useful stuff?

I am kinda drawn to buying the body and a lens separately.

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

Thats not what I mean, I mean not taking the 18-55 lens that most entry level bundles come with!!

If I didn't take the 18-55, what would be a good starter lens, but still reasonably versatile?

Do I assume that the Tamron 70-200 is physically alot bigger?

Is there are VR lens for the Canon?

tonyk

Frog, as you seem quite well up on the SLR cameras and not just saying buy a Canon! Would would be the ideal Lense for taking football team squad photos and also pictures of the game in motion. Thanks

tonyk

Ok, money is an object, I was reading the same reviews as Christian and came to the conclusion that the Canon, Sony or Nikon are all as good as each other and will happily pay the body only price, but I take it the std lense will be no good and I would be looking for a 300mm lense? I was thinking of going for the Canon, and receiving my £45 cash back and buying one of the tamron lenses.

tonyk

No it will be only Saturday morning games.

frog

If by squad photos you mean, the whole team standing (in 1, 2 or 3 rows), you'll need something like a 17/28mm lens.
For field action, depends on where you'll be If you're at the top of grandstands, you will need something special, if you're close to the pitch, I would have thought anything 200 or 300mm would be reasonable.
70/210mm lenses are pretty common, there's a 90-300 by sigma too which is good for its price.

I would try that, then get a 1.4x or 2x converter later if you feel you need to get closer to the action, or, buy a prime lens (that's not a zoom) which is 300, 400, 450 or 500, but then you're into serious money, and would have to have a pretty good reason for spending that much money on your kit

As said above though, action shots require high shutter speeds which will need a pretty fast lens if the weather is poor, or high iso.

HTH

tonyk

Frog, you have confirmed what I thought. What is the Sony A200 like as I can get it for a good price.

Thanks to all, who have helped.

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

Right, I have now held and had a brief play with the Canon EOS 400D and the Nikon D60 and despite everyone swaying me towards the Canon, I can't help but feel drawn to the Nikon. That's not to say that it's what I will end up buying!!

As others have said above, it appears that where the big decision lies is with the lens. Now, what I would like to do is omit the kit 18-55 lens from either kit and substitute it with a better lens, but it seems that the 18-55 is very low cost when you look at the £20-30 difference between the Body only price and the 18-55 kit price.

I was told that the main difference that I need to watch out for is that the Nikon needs a motorised lens, where the Canon does that in the camera, is this significant? It was suggested that the fact that the Nikon required a motorised lens will limit my choice of lenses?

Can someone please explain in a nutshell the focal range of these lenses, for example, am I assuming that the larger number is needed for photographing things that are further away? So, an 18-200 lens will photograph something that is further away better than an 18-55? What would be the effect of gonig for a lens whose range begins at 28 instead of 18? I know these may seem like really simple questions to some and I think I know the answer, but I would just like to know the facts.

I was impressed with Nikons 18-200 VR lens, but thats a pricey little number, I'm guessing it would be impractical to carry too, being larger in physical size.

Another part of me just wants to get the 18-55 and start using it, then I can begin to understand all these numbers and hopefully make a wise choice about a further lens. I do enjoy photography, but I don't want to spend thousands.

frog

It's like buying a car, some will say you shouldn't have a Ford, others will say you can't hanve anything else

For the sake of £20 you could start with that and worry about other lenses later (or very soon).

It will simply because older lenses (those you might find on eBay) won't be motorised, so there's a whole history of lenses that won't be available to you
Does that matter, probably not tbh, but consider that every lens you buy will have to have a motor inside it, I'd rather pay for better glass than another motor every time
It's a bit like having to buy a drill for each drill bit in your tool box ! Or a ratchet for each socket

This will give you a rough idea http://www.trustedreviews.com/digita...ocul-Length/p2

18-200 will indeed allow you to shoot large things from up close (buildings without standing half a mile away), family around a table at 18mm. While allowing you to zoom into a bird (the feathered variety) sitting on a branch without scaring it away at the 200mm end.

55 mm will be good for a full frame portrait of someone without standing too close or too far.

So it follows that an 18-200 is pretty versatile and possibly the only lens you'll ever need, however, there's a compromise there. It might be better to go for an 18-55 and a 55-200 or something like that. Two slightly better lenses in their own right because they don't have to deal with two extremes, 18 and 200 in one go.
A bit like having a 4x4 and a track car, rather than one that both reasonably well, but not brilliantly either

As I've said many times though, it may be that you won't actually notice the quality difference between a single 18-200 and an 18-55 + 55-200 meaning the argument is neither here nor there.
Plus, having two lenses mean you have to swap them, sometimes missing the picture opportunity as a result, you'll need a bigger bag, it will (may) weigh more, etc...

A VR lens will always set you back a little more due to the extra electronics and mechanicals involved in stabilising the optics inside the lens.

As said above, most people would have an 18-55 and something like a 55-200, 70-210 or 90-300 to go with it. Start with the 18-55, get used to the camera and treat yourself to a new lens when you feel you need it.
Maybe save some money in the mean time for the VR lens

The whole discussion around 18-200 lenses that are now available is very interesting though, such a wide range of focal lengths in one lens haven't been available for long

Sorry for the long post, hope it helps

frog

Here are a few more links

Divide the numbers they give by 1.5 (e.g 35mm -> 23mm) for them to make sense with your dSLR (A whole new topic of discussion here)
http://www.photoaxe.com/understandin...-and-aperture/

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

I really appreciate your help. The VR thing was explained in the context of it being irrelevant on such a lens as 18-55. The guy said that if you're hand is so unsteady that you need VR on an 18-55, then you should see a doctor! Kinda makes sense really, would be nice if I could buy the Nikon with a better quality 18-55 by omitting the VR aspect, then later on when I buy another longer range lens, make that a VR compliant one.

Man, this is complicated!! LOL.

Fast Guy

But you could be in low light where you can't use the flash, a museum for example (well one that doesn't allow flashes) and the IS or VR will let you hand hold at a longer shutter speed, say 1/10th and still get a good picture.

Muska

The Nikon 18-70mm lens (£170ish from warehouseexpress.com )
Is considered to be good for a kit lens, and certainly better than the kit lens that came with my D80 (18-135mm) Worth considering but remember it's capability in low light will not be as good as the 18-55mm VR. If this is an issue to you then consider this. the kit lens for the D60 is considered to be a good lens, better than the other kit lenses on offer. I can't spoeak rom experience with this lens but here is a review of it...

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...p5-5p6_vr_n15/

How much are you willing to spend on a lens if you don't choose the kit one?

Matt.

Stu @ M Developments

iTrader: (12)

Or he should do a litle research on the subject... LOL
If your shooting indoor sports where flash isnt allowed (Kickboxing in my case), the extra shutter time provided by my IS lens (Canons version of Nikons VR) is a godsend IMO and it has definately made my own pictures substantially better.

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

That is how I understood it, but from what was saying, VR on a short-range lens like the 18-55 is fairly pointless, although very useful on a longer-range lens. I guess I can kind of see where he is coming from, although had already acknowledged the possibility of shooting at a slower speed successfully with VR/IS.

If the 18-55 VR lens that comes with the Nikon is a good one, then thats good for me. I'd like to find Canon's equivalent, so I can compare the two respective packages.

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

It's this one I guess......

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Prod...6_IS/index.asp

Muska

I'm not so familiar with canon lenses to be honest with you.

VR is considered a gimmic at that focal longth. If you had a lens with the same focal length and it was f2.8 instead of f3.5 then you'd have the same low light ability you'd have on a f3.5 VR/IS lens (roughly 2 stops) and a much nicer depth of field. The difference comes at a cost though. A decent Sigma lens which is roughly 18-70mm and f2.8 through out the focal range is over £400. See Mr Frogs excellent tutorials on photography (aperture in this case) for a greater understanding.

Stu @ M Developments

iTrader: (12)

I have these three...
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Prod..._USM/index.asp

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Prod..._USM/index.asp

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Prod...18II/index.asp

And will purchase this before the summer...
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Prod..._USM/index.asp


I also use these:
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Prod...x_II/index.asp

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Prod...x_II/index.asp

Stu @ M Developments

iTrader: (12)

Agree in some respects, but the difference in price between my F2.8 IS and teh faster one is MASSIVE. The IS is WELL worth the small extra cost in my case.

pa_sjo

It's quite simple. Canon is the worlds favourite. The majority of professional photographers use Canon (just go look how many 'white' lenses you see at events, football, etc).. Canon will ultimately cost you less once you get bitten by the bug to buy more lenses etc.

However, I chose Nikon. Mainly for the feel. The rebel (350D) was just too small for my hands and it felt like a toy. The Nikon is a MANS camera

I've got a D50 with a few lenses, two Nikon, one Tamron.. Nikon glass is expensive (well, slightly more than Canon), I want to get the 18-200 Nikon but it's about £450 and isn't particulary fast (eg, large aperture), but it does have VR which compensates for the lack of speed somewhat. The key thing is this lens could be the only lens you need to own..

My package recommendation would be a D40, Nikkor 18-200 lens and a SB-400 flash. That's about £800 worth and will serve you well for many years!

frog

As for the VR discussion, buy a Sony dSLR, comes with built in "steadyshot", so any lens you stick on the camera will have VR (or IS) by default

pratley

I have a 400D and a sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 super wide macro and is a cracking lens. Would be well suited to shooting football squads and also i have sigma 70-300 4-5.6 which is also a great lens and both lenses are very reasonably priced. The 17-70 under £250 and the 70-300 under £160!
As for wether Canon is better than Nikon or vise versa its all depends on what you feel more comfortable using. Ive never used Nikon and probably never will, only because im so used the controls and functions on a Canon and never had any problems. Also get yourself a monopod or tripod!

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

OK, curve ball time!!

I'm buying today, end of, I've had enough of looking. LOL. Just popped into a local camera shop (London Camera Exchange) and they couldn't praise the Olympus E510 enough. Seems to tick all the boxes on paper, so tell me, is it worth considering?

They had a kit marked up at £530 that had 2 lenses, has image stabilisation built into the body, 2-year warranty etc etc.

pa_sjo

Isn't that a silly question after practically everyone has said Canon or Nikon?