DSLR Question

I'm in the market (hopefully) for a DSLR sometime in the near future. I've narrowed it down to either the Canon EOS-Rebel T1i or the Nikon D90 (I'm leaning towards the D90), but I noticed with both cameras that the basic lens that comes with it has a very narrow aperture range (f/3.5-f/5.6). Is this a feature of all DSLR lenses? If it is, is there a reason for this?
Also, if you have any insight on either of the cameras, please share.

Thanks.

My brother moonlights in photography. He sent me this link and I find the info invaluable: Recommended Cameras

That is the max aperture it changes depending on focal length. So for a F3.5-5.6 18-55mm lens, 18mm it is 3.5 and at 55mm it is 5.6. Most will at least go to F22 on the other end.

PS...Look at the Pentax K-X..

but I noticed with both cameras that the basic lens that comes with it has a very narrow aperture range (f/3.5-f/5.6).

This refers to the max aperture of the lens. Cheaper zoom lenses have a variable max aperture. As you zoom the max aperture will go from f/3.5 to f/5.6, where a fixed aperture lens can stay at say f/2.8 for a Canon 70-200 L zoom lens. Most lenses will actually go to f/22.

Don't make the mistake of buying a DSLR based on the lens that comes with it. The whole reason for buying an DSLR is for the interchangeable lenses. In fact, if I were you I'd look at finding the best deal on a camera body only, and the best deal on a really good lens to go with it. Start with that, and add lenses in the future. Kit lenses are OK, but you won't be using them after you get a better lens. So why spend the money on them in the first place?

Kenrockwell is a joke.

Sorry, I feel compelled to say that anytime I see his name.

What's your budget? What do you want to shoot? Do you care about video?

Kenrockwell is a joke.

Click to expand...

If I argued with you about that statement it would be like me arguing with a woman about what it's like to have a baby. Could you tell me why he is a joke so that I can gingerly break it to my brother

Thanks to all for the help. I'm pretty well versed in the basic camera workings/jargon from film cameras, but I know next to nothing about DSLR. I wasn't sure if that was just a feature of the basic kit lens or some strange DSLR anomaly.

Village Idiot said:

What's your budget? What do you want to shoot? Do you care about video?

Click to expand...

In response to Village Idiot, I have absolutely no use for video. I'm looking to shoot just a general spectrum of subjects, primarily landscape/close range. As far as budget, I'm looking for the best I can get for the money. (I'm still in high school and therefore relying on parental aid, so a good value for the money is pretty essential. )

I would say you are better off going with the Nikon if you are set on either Canon or Nikon. Mostly because in my experience the flash systems made by Nikon are better than those made by Canon. The quality of both manufacturers lenses are really equal...

The upside to the nikon is also that unlike Canon they didn't change the mounting system they used in their SLR camera when they went to auto focus lenses. That means you can go buy an old used Nikon used in the 1970's and it will fit onto the D90... it wouldn't have auto focus but you could still use it. You can't do the same with a Canon, for a Canon you can only use their auto focus lenses they older ones for manual focus wont work... so to me you have a lot more options for buying used lenses with a Nikon than you do a Canon.

I wouldn't worry about the lens that comes with the cameras in either case because both Nikon and Canon just put in a cheap lens with the kits knowing that most buyers will buy an additional lens later that is better.

One other thing to consider though, is how does the camera feel in your hands. Each manufacturer tends to have a different idea about what is ergonomic. For me the Nikon feels better and is more comfortable... for my wife she like the way Sony's feel compared to the Nikon.. its a personal thing and for someone that has no vested interest in either camera yet I would suggest you get the one that feel best to you... no point in buying a camera that feels wrong.

Also as someone else alluded to, there are other options besides Nikon and Canon... I would suggest you go look with an open mind at Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Sony before you decide... while there are some preferences people have between the various brands, the reality is that any of those 4 would be good enough... don't get sucked into a brand because of marketing hype. Go with your gut on what feel best and looks best to you.

The only reason I'd narrowed it down to Canon and Sony was because I've heard good things about Canon from a friend, and my teacher suggested Nikon. I mostly picked those brands to narrow down the field of possibilities due to the overwhelming bulk of cameras out there.

Once again, many thanks to all for the suggestions.

Corbab said:

Thanks to all for the help. I'm pretty well versed in the basic camera workings/jargon from film cameras, but I know next to nothing about DSLR. I wasn't sure if that was just a feature of the basic kit lens or some strange DSLR anomaly.



In response to Village Idiot, I have absolutely no use for video. I'm looking to shoot just a general spectrum of subjects, primarily landscape/close range. As far as budget, I'm looking for the best I can get for the money. (I'm still in high school and therefore relying on parental aid, so a good value for the money is pretty essential. )

Click to expand...

One of the best deals right now is a Used 40D. They can be had for about $600-$700 and it blows the pants off of the XXD Nikons and XXXD and other entry level Canons. Metal body, 6.5fps, and a ton of other great features, plus the controls are so much more intuitive and easier to use than the entry level Canons.

You'll want wide angle for what you said is your primary focus. That can be expensive. A used Sigma 10-20 will run you about $500, iirc.

Canon generally has cheaper lens options and if you're going to learn flash, off camera TTL has it's place, but learning how to manually control strobes is key. I finally picked up two additional proprietary Canon speedlights and have only shot with them in TTL mode (auto mode basically) twice. With the mix of studio strobes and small manual speedlights, there is no auto option so knowing how to set your strobe power, angle, position, etc... because necessary knowledge.

Really, the important parts of photography are the knowledge, the lenses, and the light. Camera bodies do matter up to a point, but with the right knowledge you can make it pretty far without having to worry about high ISO performance, FPS, etc...

ArrowJ said:

If I argued with you about that statement it would be like me arguing with a woman about what it's like to have a baby. Could you tell me why he is a joke so that I can gingerly break it to my brother

Click to expand...

He's obviously Nikon biased for one.

One comparison between the D3X and the 5D MKII, he upsizes the 5D MKII images to 24mp and complains about lack of sharpness in the 5D MKII images. Well duh, when you blow an image up from it's native resolution, it gets blurry.

He thuroughly denounced full frame DSLRs saying that they were going to go the way of the dinosaur and that APS-C sensors were the future...until Nikon released a FF format DSLR.

He mentions that it's a waste to shoot in RAW and the only people that do are geeks that sit around and waste all day playing on the computer and that people should only shoot in JPG. 95% of the people I know and pros I know of tend to shoot RAW. It's a lossless format where as JPG images lose data every time they're saved, eventually losing IQ and degrading into crap after so many saves.

There's more. It's good to read his blog for a laugh on occasion.

Edit: Just browsed your link, best serious camera a D40? It's a 6MP camera that lacks an internal focusing motor, which all but the basic entry level Nikons have. This mean that unless the lens is marked AF-S and has a focusing motor in the lens, that it won't auto focus. That means that the D40 will not have to ability to auto focus with all of the current lenses in Nikon's lineup.

None of the other manufactures have that problem, iirc. Nikon did that to keep down the price. And for that price, you could get a weather sealed Pentax or Olympus. Not to mention that the Nikon D40 is an older camera and might not even be listed as a current item in their lineup as it's been upgraded to the D40x and replaced by the D60.

Where would you go for refurbished cameras? I'm a bit wary about buying used online (or at least my dad is).

Corbab said:

Where would you go for refurbished cameras? I'm a bit wary about buying used online (or at least my dad is).

Click to expand...

Depending where you live...it's different obviously. In Cali I always go to Samy's Camera.

Ebay used or just buy new, the prices seem really high on used and refurbished gear.

All the new cameras from both Nikon and Canon (even the entry level ones) all have amazing image quality and are all capable of making huge prints if you do your part, the only pluses you really get from going with a higher end used model are things like better build quality, faster and more accurate autofocus, faster frame rate.

I shoot a ton of sports so for me I would do much better with used pro body than a new entry level, I am hard on gear and it has to travel well and be fast!

My friend shots landscapes and hikes to get to them so the smaller size of the lower end models is a plus for him, also AF speed and frame rate are not a concern to him either.

What are you going to be shooting?

Corbab said:

Where would you go for refurbished cameras? I'm a bit wary about buying used online (or at least my dad is).

Click to expand...

Corbab said:

Where would you go for refurbished cameras? I'm a bit wary about buying used online (or at least my dad is).

Click to expand...

photography-on-the.net

over 100k registered members with a huge classified sections. I buy and sell $1000+ lenses there and have never had a problem. Most people take care of their expensive toys and play smart and you won't have a problem.

I think I've narrowed it down to either the Canon 50D or the Nikon D90. Any advice?

To RayLee: I'm planning on shooting mostly landscape/close range, not a whole lot of sports or portraits, and size/weight is no issue because I've been lugging around a 35mm for a while.

Corbab said:

Where would you go for refurbished cameras? I'm a bit wary about buying used online (or at least my dad is).

Click to expand...

While I have bought many used lenses off ebay, I don't think I would buy a camera off ebay used or even new. Too great a chance of it being a problem or gray market and then when something needs to be fixed on it you would be up a creek.

One thing you might keep in mind is that a Sony has image stabilization built into the camera so any Sony lens or any older Minolta auto focus lens you put on it will get the benefit of image stabilization... nikons and canon require you buy the more expensive lens with the stabilization built into it.

Corbab said:

I think I've narrowed it down to either the Canon 50D or the Nikon D90. Any advice?

Click to expand...

Play with them in a shop.
Thats the only way to decide what is best for you.

I would say the Canon, but then im a canon shooter and im sure a Nikon shooter will say the Nikon is the way to go...

fov said:

Play with them in a shop.
Thats the only way to decide what is best for you.

I would say the Canon, but then im a canon shooter and im sure a Nikon shooter will say the Nikon is the way to go...

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Unless you get a model into your hands, you'll either get lucky and pick one which has great ergonomics tailore to suit your body, or you're going to unknowingly ( at first) force yourself into pretending to be comfortable, which will ultimately lead to less and less shooting time.

I went with a Nikon D300 because of several things. It felt natural sitting in my hands vs. Any Canon of equal dollar value. The Canon bodies, to ME just had an akward feel to them. On top of that, while actually shooting off frames with the Nik, I was able to make adjustments at the same time. This means never having to remove my eye from the viewfinder and breaking my concentration on the subject matter. The button placement along with the standard control features available were much more logical and intuitive for me on the Nik.

Then there's the menu system. I'm sorry but, there's just no comparison in this area. I have several canon point and shoots ( they do excel with these) as well as an S3IS which is a "bridge" camera, as well as having used a friend's x series DSLR, and they're pretty much all the same within the menu system category. It takes way too long to get into certain features, which on my Nik are able to be customized so that I don't even have to go into the menu at all.

To say that I find Canons menu system lacking and sloppy, is being nice. But, that's just my opinion. There's other reasons I chose the Nik for, but I'll keep it to just one. High ISO shooting and noise. Again, Nikon pretty much wipes the floor with Canon in this category. Sure, post processing will alleviate noise issues, but I dint want to spend all day in front of the computer if I have better things to do.

Lastly, on a different note: nikon is alienating a good deal of potential new users these days IMO, due to the pricing scheme on their lenses. The funny thing is, had I known that they'd be pushing their lens prices up the way they did, I'd still have gone for one. But, I might have gone with a differen body in order to get better lenses.

I have two Nikkor lenses in my lineup currently. The 50mm 1.8 and the 70-300 vrII. Both excellent quality. On the other hand, I also have a Sigma 17-70 HSM micro and a Sigma 28mm 1.8 HSM which also does micro. The 28 is wonderful. I love it. The other one? I rarely use it for some reason. It focuses fine and it tracks ok, but I just don't care for it as much.

Last word: I loathe Ken Rockwell. He truly IS an idiot IMO.

Doug


Edit: if looking for used, B&H photo and Adorama online sell used, floor models and refurbs. All with warranty. You might also check out www.keh.com

Doug b said:

I couldn't agree more. Unless you get a model into your hands, you'll either get lucky and pick one which has great ergonomics tailore to suit your body, or you're going to unknowingly ( at first) force yourself into pretending to be comfortable, which will ultimately lead to less and less shooting time.

I went with a Nikon D300 because of several things. It felt natural sitting in my hands vs. Any Canon of equal dollar value. The Canon bodies, to ME just had an akward feel to them. On top of that, while actually shooting off frames with the Nik, I was able to make adjustments at the same time. This means never having to remove my eye from the viewfinder and breaking my concentration on the subject matter. The button placement along with the standard control features available were much more logical and intuitive for me on the Nik.

Then there's the menu system. I'm sorry but, there's just no comparison in this area. I have several canon point and shoots ( they do excel with these) as well as an S3IS which is a "bridge" camera, as well as having used a friend's x series DSLR, and they're pretty much all the same within the menu system category. It takes way too long to get into certain features, which on my Nik are able to be customized so that I don't even have to go into the menu at all.

To say that I find Canons menu system lacking and sloppy, is being nice. But, that's just my opinion. There's other reasons I chose the Nik for, but I'll keep it to just one. High ISO shooting and noise. Again, Nikon pretty much wipes the floor with Canon in this category. Sure, post processing will alleviate noise issues, but I dint want to spend all day in front of the computer if I have better things to do.

Lastly, on a different note: nikon is alienating a good deal of potential new users these days IMO, due to the pricing scheme on their lenses. The funny thing is, had I known that they'd be pushing their lens prices up the way they did, I'd still have gone for one. But, I might have gone with a differen body in order to get better lenses.

I have two Nikkor lenses in my lineup currently. The 50mm 1.8 and the 70-300 vrII. Both excellent quality. On the other hand, I also have a Sigma 17-70 HSM micro and a Sigma 28mm 1.8 HSM which also does micro. The 28 is wonderful. I love it. The other one? I rarely use it for some reason. It focuses fine and it tracks ok, but I just don't care for it as much.

Last word: I loathe Ken Rockwell. He truly IS an idiot IMO.

Doug


Edit: if looking for used, B&H photo and Adorama online sell used, floor models and refurbs. All with warranty. You might also check out Buy & Sell New & Used Cameras ? Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad, Leica & More - KEH.com

Click to expand...

Have you tried any of the new Canons? The menu system is very streamlined and a lot of people say it's much less cluttered than Nikon's is now.