Picking the right DSLR

[wrath]

So, last year for my wife's birthday I spent a bunch of money on a Canon G10 and crap for it. She uses it a lot, but it's no SLR. It works great for me as I can't really tell what a "good picture" is unless you get technical. And 90% of the time the "auto" function works for me.

I'm looking at mid-price not-quite-prosumer DSLRs. Basically looking for the best bang for the buck. She's familiar with Nikon stuff but she admitted that the Canon stuff seems nicer these days for the dollars spent on the wannabe equipment. And I've already got a few things for the G10 that can be used on a Canon DSLR so I'm of course leaning towards the Canon being the cheap bastard I am.

For whatever reason, she's interested in the Nikon D90. I think it's because one of her friends at work has one and it's relatively cheap. It seems to be a bit obsolete at a price premium to me. Plus I'm sure it's going to get EOLed soon so it'd be like buying a new Pontiac at MSRP right now. It's not a bad camera, it's just old and expensive.

So, I remembered that the Canon T1i was nice when it came out, almost bought it instead of the G10. Well, I spotted that the T2i came out a few weeks ago. In almost every way it seems better than the Nikon D90.

Sunday we went to Mike Crivello's on Bluemound. She handled a Nikon D90, Nikon D300s, and a Canon 7d. I tried to get her to look at the Canon T2i but for some reason she didn't but I did. She focused on a Canon 50d instead, not sure why (overwhelmed maybe?). To me, the T2i seemed like a better camera than both the Canon 50d and Nikon D90. For some reason she was fixated on the D90 and D300s until I pointed out that the 7d is a better camera than the D300s and it's cheaper, plus Canon-comparable lenses are cheaper. So, after consuming about an hour and a half of the girl's time (she wasn't a camera snob, which was nice) we went home with a bunch more ideas and the old lady got to handle the cameras. As a side note, I found the lenses to be far more interesting than the cameras.

I suspect the fixation on the D90 and D300s is because she can borrow equipment from a friend at work. But she has another friend at work that has a Canon 7d, and she's used it and liked it very much. She knows enough about photography to know what lenses she wants/needs so it's not a case of "try before you buy" so I'd just rather buy the lenses she wants/needs.


So yesterday she was ready to go to Mike Crivello's and buy a T2i. Well, I'm less spontaneous and want to research it every time I go and spend more than a hundred bucks. So she got mad at me about it for putting the binders on. Then found an excuse not to buy it because it doesn't have the LCD on the top of the camera. Which is something I noticed and seems like you could save some serious batter by having that available. I think what pushed her towards the T2i is when I said that the T2i costs half as much as a D300s or 7d that meant in a couple years she could get a new body. So I suspect the prospect of getting a new camera in a couple years instead of 3 or 4 pushed her that way.

So, right now Canon has a deal where you get $100+ instant rebate off MSRP on a 7d. That means the 7d with the 28-135 kit lens is $1800. The T2i is going for $900 with a 18-55 kit lens. I'm not opposed to buying a 5d Mark II either, but since she's not going to be taking pictures of kids in a studio for a living the camera doesn't seem to be worth $1000 more than a 7d.


I'm kind of stuck as I don't know if the 7d, at twice the cost, is worth it. I can sit there and compare specifications all day but I don't know how to use it to its fullest. It seems like decent optics can make the T2i a mighty fine camera. And I'd be more inclined to immediately spend another $600 on a lens for the T2i than the 7d. But, the 7d seems like a far superior camera for what she's going to use it for--outdoor use and family events. And the T2i might not have the features she goes looking for.

[Dom87SS]

all good cameras. i have had my 50D for just over 2 months now with over 5000 clicks already. I like it a lot but am mad at my self for not getting the 7D so i can do video and use the extra features such as the added focal point when im shooting. I hope to be able to get a 7D this year.

[wrath]

So, I'm also looking at lenses. Seems that APS-C lenses should be avoided.

I thought IS/VC/FancyAcronym was pretty sweet. Doesn't seem like you *need* it as long as it's got a big hole to collect light.

If my suspicion is correct, a person only really need a few good lenses as opposed to a stack of mediocre lenses.

So, it seems that it's difficult for someone like me to choose between these:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

Because, it seems like the:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is really expensive.

[Dom87SS]

if your looking at those lenses, and are serious about spending the money on them. its a no brainier to get the 2.8. that is my main lens when shooting anything action now. Its heavy (as is the f4) but is much faster which helps when it starts getting dark out. and gives you a better DOF when you stop it down to 2.8.

[DirtyMax]

Wise man once said...

An f2.8 lens can shoot at f4 but an f4 lens can't shoot at f2.8

[JohnnyT]

But also remember that you will not be able to take full advantage of an f/2.8 lens with an APS-C sensor.

[domokun]

But also remember that you will not be able to take full advantage of an f/2.8 lens with an APS-C sensor.


Im a bit confused by this comment. f/2.8 is going to be the amount of light let in. f/2.8 is f/2.8 no matter the camera its on ( crop or ff ).


the only thing diff between a crop and a FF is DOF when talking F stops.

[Dom87SS]

Im a bit confused by this comment. f/2.8 is going to be the amount of light let in. f/2.8 is f/2.8 no matter the camera its on ( crop or ff ).


the only thing diff between a crop and a FF is DOF when talking F stops.

That's my understanding as well. It will shoot at whatever you set it to. But not being full frame you will not achieve the real DOF with the smaller sensor. As we know you also don't get true focal length with it being a crop sensor. Your 70-200 is really 70*1.6-200*1.6 which is your actual length.

[JohnnyT]

Your 70-200 is really 70*1.6-200*1.6 which is your actual length.

That was my point.

This will explain it as well...

http://www.minasi.com/photos/dslrmag/

[wrath]

I got a 7d and the 28-135mm kit lens because I couldn't decide which "real lens" to buy. So I'm going to sit on it for a while.

Probably going to buy one of these if the prices come down to last years' levels:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

[domokun]

I know DOF and focal. but taking full advantage of f/2.8 on a crop was really misleading ;)

[Dom87SS]

That was my point.

This will explain it as well...

http://www.minasi.com/photos/dslrmag/

this is a good read, thanks for posting it up




I got a 7d and the 28-135mm kit lens because I couldn't decide which "real lens" to buy. So I'm going to sit on it for a while.

Probably going to buy one of these if the prices come down to last years' levels:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

theres a really good chance you wont need the IS lens. Figure out what you want to shoot and go from there. But the extra money for the IS is not worth it to a lot of people who shoot with it, again depending on what you plan on shooting. Also canon just released the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II at a higher price. this should start dropping the price of the other 2 lenses you listed, but who knows when that will actually trickle down. Im kinda jealous of the 7D too :D:D:D

As for the 28-135 you may or may not like it. I know a guy that is all he shoots with and does well with it. But ive also met others and read plenty of reviews where people just hate it. Its a bit too long to use as a general walk around lens. Ive also seen complaints its just too slow, especially when you start getting into dim lighting. But i say play with it, and learn what you can. Having a good body does not hurt as it allows to have so much control over what the exposed picture will look like. But the glass really makes the body shine. It is the most important thing. So spend your money wisely and do lots of research on what you will be buying in the future.

[domokun]

new photographer worries about the body
good photographer worries about the lens
great photographer worries about the light

thats all I can say to this :)

[Dom87SS]

new photographer worries about the body
good photographer worries about the lens
great photographer worries about the light

thats all I can say to this :)

I think i need a new body :D:D:D

but this makes me think how i am coming along. I am taking lighting into perspective a lot more lately than ever. Especially now that i committed my self to using additional lighting and bought a 580ex II. I just hope i can get a handle on all this soon and start taking better quality pictures.

[wrath]

The old lady is pretty excited about her new camera. I even caught her RTFMing.

The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is $1800 right now. Last year MAP was $1700. And with rebates and whatnot you could get it as cheap as $1450 for a USA version a few times. It could be had for as cheap as $1375 last summer. If I can get a new one for around $1400 I'm going to buy it. It seems that this is a carry-all lens for most prosumers and even some professionals so I figure if it's good enough for them it's beyond reasonable for me and it's good enough for my wife.

I played around with the camera with the 28-135mm lens and my 220EX flash from the G10. The 220EX flash is better than the onboard flash, especially in recycle time. The camera took great pictures as long as the lighting was decent... no matter what I did at 28mm it took great pictures at ISO 400 even. But I'm no expert. The camera is wasted on me, it'd be like Suzy Homemaker owning a $3000 tablesaw.

I spent about two hours earlier this week monkeying around with a 5d Mark II. The only shortcoming I could find on the 7d was the APS-C format sensor. Other than that, it was WAY nicer than a 5dMII. If there was a 5dMIII, I probably would have spent a grand more for it.

Panning in an arc at 135mm ISO 400 with the 220EX the pictures showed no blur. So, for indoor stuff, the flash really makes a difference for stopping time. So it's all about the light, even more so than I thought. The limitation right now is definitely not the body.

I ordered:
580 EX II
B&W 72mm UV Haze 010 F-Pro MRC filter

Should be here sometime next week.

[DirtyMax]

The 7D is a badass rig but that's a lot of $$ to drop on a crop body. I went and played with it a few weeks ago and I can say that being in your position, I'd have opted for the 50D or sprung the extra few hundo for the 5D FF. But that being said, you have one hell of a camera there and it will serve you guys for years to come! :thumbsup

I've owned the 70-200 2.8L and rented the 70-200 2.8L IS. I actually preferred the balance of the non-IS and the image quality seemes to be a touch better as well. I never did any serious panning with my non-IS but anything I did was manageable without ths IS. Nowdays, I'm in love with primes. 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 are my favorites. I picked up a Canon 55-250 f4-5.6 IS for walking around. For an EF-S, the IQ of that lens is fantastic and it's a hell of a lot less bulky and obnoxious then the big L lenses. I had the 28-135IS because it came with my 50D and I didn't care for the IQ compared to the 55-250IS but maybe I got a bad copy. The aperture doesn't bother me either because any time I am using a zoom, it's usually outdoors. For as often as I needed the big zooms, I can rent a 70-200 2.8 with IS for an entire weekend for $75 from Art's locally. I'd have to do that 20 times over before it made sense to buy one and even at that, now I don't have to have that capital tied up in the lens.

You'll like the 580EX II. I sold mine for the chance to get 2 430EX II's. While the 430 isn't a bad flash, I can see myself buying a 580 again here soon.

[wrath]

I know what you mean about it being an APS-C sensor. Honestly, if there was a 5dMkIII I probably would have bought that. But the 5dMkII, at this point in its lifecycle, is a bit dated as compared to it's little brother the 7d. The 5dMkII was missing some important stuff to me (mostly the 1920x1080@24fps video and the 8fps) and the flash was pretty important also (not always convenient to walk around with something that giant if you think you might need a little help with a flash). I can see why the 5dMkII is so popular but we need a walkable, fast, outdoor and indoor camera and the extra $1000 couldn't be found in any of the features. A year ago the 5dMkII would have been it for us but the 7d came along. In fact, if the 7d holds its value it might get sold whenever a 5dMkIII comes out.

The 580EXII seems to be a decent flash and they seem to last forever so kind of like a lens--I figure I'll just buy one instead of having to "upgrade" a 270 or 430 later. Plus it was a little over a hundred bucks more than the 430EXII.

[JohnnyT]

I know what you mean about it being an APS-C sensor. Honestly, if there was a 5dMkIII I probably would have bought that. But the 5dMkII, at this point in its lifecycle, is a bit dated as compared to it's little brother the 7d. The 5dMkII was missing some important stuff to me (mostly the 1920x1080@24fps video and the 8fps) and the flash was pretty important also (not always convenient to walk around with something that giant if you think you might need a little help with a flash). I can see why the 5dMkII is so popular but we need a walkable, fast, outdoor and indoor camera and the extra $1000 couldn't be found in any of the features. A year ago the 5dMkII would have been it for us but the 7d came along. In fact, if the 7d holds its value it might get sold whenever a 5dMkIII comes out.

The 580EXII seems to be a decent flash and they seem to last forever so kind of like a lens--I figure I'll just buy one instead of having to "upgrade" a 270 or 430 later. Plus it was a little over a hundred bucks more than the 430EXII.

It really comes down to what you are going to use the camera for. If you are just a casual or even an enthusiast shooter you don't need a full frame camera. If you are looking to go pro, definitely plan for one in the future. No disrespect here, but no hard core shooter is going to give a rats ass about video in a D-SLR, so I am guessing you fall into the casual/enthusiast category. You will most likely never see the difference between the APS-C and full frame sensor. Both produce VERY nice images and can even be publishable quality if you decide to go that route. I guess it comes down to this. If you are happy with the features, functionality and price you paid, don't second guess yourself and just move on and enjoy what you bought. Also, don't get caught up in spending money on the biggest and best things unless you really need them. Most people can be VERY happy with an f/4 lens and really don't need and f/2.8. As was said previously, rent the lens you think you want before you buy it. After using it for a week or so, you may realize it isn't what you thought it was or doesn't fit the need like you thought when you saw it in a magazine or online. Just my .02.

Good luck and enjoy the new gear!!! :thumbsup

[domokun]

The 7D is a badass rig but that's a lot of $$ to drop on a crop body. I went and played with it a few weeks ago and I can say that being in your position, I'd have opted for the 50D or sprung the extra few hundo for the 5D FF. But that being said, you have one hell of a camera there and it will serve you guys for years to come! :thumbsup

I've owned the 70-200 2.8L and rented the 70-200 2.8L IS. I actually preferred the balance of the non-IS and the image quality seemes to be a touch better as well. I never did any serious panning with my non-IS but anything I did was manageable without ths IS. Nowdays, I'm in love with primes. 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 are my favorites. I picked up a Canon 55-250 f4-5.6 IS for walking around. For an EF-S, the IQ of that lens is fantastic and it's a hell of a lot less bulky and obnoxious then the big L lenses. I had the 28-135IS because it came with my 50D and I didn't care for the IQ compared to the 55-250IS but maybe I got a bad copy. The aperture doesn't bother me either because any time I am using a zoom, it's usually outdoors. For as often as I needed the big zooms, I can rent a 70-200 2.8 with IS for an entire weekend for $75 from Art's locally. I'd have to do that 20 times over before it made sense to buy one and even at that, now I don't have to have that capital tied up in the lens.

You'll like the 580EX II. I sold mine for the chance to get 2 430EX II's. While the 430 isn't a bad flash, I can see myself buying a 580 again here soon.

1700 for full frame or crop...it doesnt matter WHAT sensor it is. look at the performance and features of each Crop or FF frame. it all comes down to that. plus different strokes for different folks

everyone jumps on the FF bandwagon, including yourself. is it nice to get that extra little bit in your frame....sure...it is needed? nope, go wider, or take 1 step back :)


I know photographers that shoot better than ALL of us combined with a crop. its all about knowing your gear and having a good eye / composition . Sensor means shit. so therefore you fall into the "newb" category ( worrying about the body ) lol ( Sorry jeremy, I didnt meant to single you out, this was just a example )

[DirtyMax]

Sorry, Ansel Adams. I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to have a preference. I'll make sure and check with you before I buy my FF just to make sure you think I'm ready for it.

My point was that if I'm going to drop almost 2 g's on a body, I want to make sure it is one that allows me to use all of the light I am able to. There is no denying that there are light gathering advantages to a FF over a crop. So given the choice of a FF or a crop for only a few hundred different, I'd choose the larger sensor. That was it! Saying that the sensor means shit is just dumb man... sorry.

My bad for having an opinion.

Sincerely,
Newb

[wrath]

I ended up with the 7d 28-135mm kit for $1550 from an authorized reseller. Twice that gets me a 5dMkII with an equally mediocre lens. If there were a 5dMkIII and it had the same features (popup flash and wireless flash controller for example) and specifications (or preferably better) for $3k with a mediocre kit lens I'd have purchased it.

I was the one that wanted the video, my wife couldn't have cared less. The potential of the camera is wasted on me. I don't want to buy a camcorder and have to carry that around too.

My wife has never been able to afford such nice things. While it's a damn expensive hobby, it's no worse than mine and a lot of it holds its value quite well. The camera cost less than the tires on my mud truck and I'd be lucky to get 2/3 of it back if I tried to sell them the day after I bought them. So, since my wife doesn't want to spend a bunch of money on this stuff I have to research it, run it by her if I'm unsure, then buy it. I'm tickled pink if I can buy something for $100 that works just as good as something for $250... but if I'm going to end up buying the $250 item later anyway, I'll just skip the $100 item.


The part that draws me to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is that I can stick a teleconverter on it, only lose one stop, and successfully circumvent buying another thousand plus dollar lens. Plus, less crap to carry around. And compared to many of the lesser lenses, this is matched perfectly to the capability of a full frame camera which she'll eventually end up with if she so chooses.

[domokun]

Sorry, Ansel Adams. I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to have a preference. I'll make sure and check with you before I buy my FF just to make sure you think I'm ready for it.

My point was that if I'm going to drop almost 2 g's on a body, I want to make sure it is one that allows me to use all of the light I am able to. There is no denying that there are light gathering advantages to a FF over a crop. So given the choice of a FF or a crop for only a few hundred different, I'd choose the larger sensor. That was it! Saying that the sensor means shit is just dumb man... sorry.

My bad for having an opinion.

Sincerely,
Newb

Jeremy, I didn't mean it like that towardS you! Low light adavantage yes but look at the cropped 7D. It does just as well as the 5D Mark ll in ISO performance.

On top of all that, good luck shooting fast paced sports with a 5D Mark ll. Great portrait, slow paced camera. Anything fast, you will not get a solid focus. It's got a piss slow AF. I have a website on my computer at home showing the AF speeds. 5D Mark ll was on the bottom. that is pathetic for a $2700 camera!

[DirtyMax]

I'm basically just playing devil's advocate actually. Plenty of people kick major ass with far less equipment than most of us have. But if I have the chance to have an advantage of gathering all the light I can by using a FF, I'm gonna do it. As mentioned earlier, that's just me.

But I would like to see that rankings to see where the other bodies stack up.