snubbr.com

New DSLR Camera
I am interested in getting a new DSLR. I have been using a canon D630 for a few years now and I am ready for "the next step". I have been researching them for a while now, but with all the new generation cameras I have to reresearch. The problem is it is hard for me, being new to DSLRs to really know what to look for. I am pretty set on the pentax K20D, as I used to be hard set on the K10D. I was also looking at the A100 before, but with the new realeases I am looking at the A350.

The IS on the XSi is on the lens, and I want it in the body. I thought Id say that and make these two lists:.

Features I am looking for:IS10+ mpDurable (weather resistant is a BIG +)Live viewChargable Battery.

Thing I plan on using it for:Shooting BonsaiSoccer, swimming, and watepolo (lots of polo)BikingSnowboarding/SkiingNAture in generalCats and dogsLarge groups of cockatielsNewly arriving b/g macaw.

I have researched it and pretty much decided on the K20D, but it is a lot of money, and I am a Senior in high school, so no big income. I wont be able to get them for another two months or so, and by that time I will be able to go into the local camera store adn *play with them*..

Also, I was wondering on Lens. What lens do I need/should I get on a low budget? There is no kit for the K20D, and I was looking at this.

Http://www.amazon.com/...r?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=A1G3ZNGANJORWD&v=glance.

I am open to any new ideas, cameras, lens, accesories, books.......Thanks,Ben..

Comments (33)

BenYorke wrote:.

Features I am looking for:IS10+ mpDurable (weather resistant is a BIG +)Live viewChargable Battery.

That fits an olympus e-3 perfectly. If you can live with it not being waterproof (but still very resistant) I'd go with the extremely cheap (since money is an issue) e-510 kit. The lenses are fantastic and will keep you going for a long while. And if you want to upgrade them there are excellent ones to choose from. But I am sure the k20d is good too, though alot more expensive..

But whatever you do, go to a store and play with the dslrs for at least 20-30 minutes. Its important that you like holding them in your hands. Press the buttons and turn the wheels and look through the viewfinder. Doing that I disqualified lots of dlsrs that I would had problems to use because of them being designed "not so good" if you know what I mean..

Well, in the end I got me an e-510 and love it.....

Comment #1

Just wondering why IS is a must for you..

I don't know anything about photography. I just like to press the shutter button and hear that sound...

Comment #2

Image Stabilazation is a must because I have incredable unstable hands and If I were to photograph sports, I would zoom a lot. There two combined equal blury shots, escpecially during the night.Thanks,Ben..

Comment #3

From what I've read the better Olympus lenses are about a stop faster than the competiton, due to the 4/3 format. The kit lenses are supposed to be a lot better than the competition's kit lenses, and with several of the bodies they have IS built in..

BenYorke wrote:.

Image Stabilazation is a must because I have incredable unstablehands and If I were to photograph sports, I would zoom a lot. Theretwo combined equal blury shots, escpecially during the night.Thanks,Ben..

Comment #4

Cjnielsen_nz wrote:.

From what I've read the better Olympus lenses are about a stop fasterthan the competiton, due to the 4/3 format. The kit lenses are.

All things equal, smaller sensors will have more noise at high ISO than larger sensors, 4/3rds is smaller than APS-C. The smaller image circle allows for equivalent sized glass to give a brighter image, but it's more likely to be offset by sensor noise changes over time- IMO the Olympus E-510 looks about a stop and a half off the Canon 400D and Nikon D40x, especially in the blacks/shadows in the DPR comparisons..

Given the pixel size limitations, the delta is very likely to grow larger if sensor improvements are applied equally to the different sized sensors. Physics conspire against high-resolution small sensors- even at APS-C sizes, let alone at 4/3rds..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #5

It sounds like Olympus is a good option for you. Liveview, IS and great kit lenses. It's the best budget SLR kit you can get. Work your way up to some pro level lenses (weather sealed) and you get a sealed body in the future..

It's true the current 4/3s sensors have a little more noise then the competition right now. I disagree with Paul though, the differences are likely to stay the same or get smaller. It's great to get better and better ISO performance, but it doesn't need to progress much further until the technology meets the needs of most photographers...

Comment #6

I'm not a sports shooter but I think many of the guys use Canon ( lens, focus and optical stabilization) may be an issue shooting waterpolo great sport btw!Ask the sports shooters...

Comment #7

Cjlacz wrote:.

Competition right now. I disagree with Paul though, the differencesare likely to stay the same or get smaller. It's great to get betterand better ISO performance, but it doesn't need to progress muchfurther until the technology meets the needs of most photographers..

You're welcome to disagree, but I don't see how you can overcome the limits inherent in physics. The smaller photosites can't catch as much light barring some very strange breakthrough. The smaller photosites will also hit diffraction limits earlier, and there's no "technology" that can overcome the physics- trust me I'm painfully aware of that even on APS-C (I miss having the old view camera apertures available on digital.).

Obviously, my premise is based upon the fact that we're hitting sensor limits, not amplification noise limits, but even then the larger photosites will catch more light..

As far as progressing much further, I suppose that depends a lot on what you shoot. For all I've said that APS-C is about right in terms of size, the Nikon D3 is _seriously_ tempting me because that ISO difference means the potential of wildlife shots in the pre-dawn hours without flash. My non-nature work doesn't make it practical at this point though..

The Nikon D300 and D3 offer us a very interesting study in sensor size vs noise if you don't think Nikon purposefully crippled the D300..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #8

Kinnaird wrote:.

I'm not a sports shooter but I think many of the guys use Canon (lens, focus and optical stabilization) may be an issue shootingwaterpolo great sport btw!Ask the sports shooters..

Most sports shooters turn off IS because it slows things down and they're generally shooting at a high shutter speed off a monopod anyway..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #9

I just keep up with technology in general and if there is one thing that is consistent in history is that people keep saying we've hit a wall and can't make more progress and then breakthrough after breakthrough follows. Yes, we may be limited to how much light gets through the lens, but I don't believe sensors have reached their limit on sensitivity yet. This technology is still in it's infancy..

Our premises are different so we'll just have to agree to disagree and see what the future holds...

Comment #10

BenYorke wrote:.

Thing I plan on using it for:Shooting BonsaiSoccer, swimming, and watepolo (lots of polo)BikingSnowboarding/SkiingNAture in generalCats and dogsLarge groups of cockatielsNewly arriving b/g macaw.

I am K10D user and I would not recommend K10D/K20D for you. It seems you want to do a lot of fast action shooting. In my opinion Pentax AF system is not good enough for that..

Edvinas..

Comment #11

Paul Robertson wrote:.

Cjlacz wrote:.

Competition right now. I disagree with Paul though, the differencesare likely to stay the same or get smaller. It's great to get betterand better ISO performance, but it doesn't need to progress muchfurther until the technology meets the needs of most photographers..

You're welcome to disagree, but I don't see how you can overcome thelimits inherent in physics. The smaller photosites can't catch asmuch light barring some very strange breakthrough. The smallerphotosites will also hit diffraction limits earlier, and there's no"technology" that can overcome the physics- trust me I'm painfullyaware of that even on APS-C (I miss having the old view cameraapertures available on digital.).

You *do* know that there is much much much more to the the image quality a sensor delivers than it's size, right ? Your view on things is most likely not even correct when you compare 2 identical (but different sized types) of cmos with equally *efficient* photosites (very important!) because of the lenses that focus light on them are not factored in. Not to mention the electronics (which might be able to use different algorithms because of other sensor properties) behind the whole setup....

What good is a huge sensor when the design is not optimal for the lens in front of it ? .

What good is a huge sensor when a smaller but more efficient one actually registers and processes more light ? .

The so called fact that noise is depended on sensor size and the size of the photosites *only* is way overexaggerated..

Just saying.....

Comment #12

Avaron wrote:.

You're welcome to disagree, but I don't see how you can overcome thelimits inherent in physics. The smaller photosites can't catch asmuch light barring some very strange breakthrough. The smallerphotosites will also hit diffraction limits earlier, and there's no"technology" that can overcome the physics- trust me I'm painfullyaware of that even on APS-C (I miss having the old view cameraapertures available on digital.).

You *do* know that there is much much much more to the the imagequality a sensor delivers than it's size, right ? Your view on things.

You do know that photosite size is the single limiting factor that image sensor designers run into today, don't you?.

Is most likely not even correct when you compare 2 identical (butdifferent sized types) of cmos with equally *efficient* photosites.

I'd suggest that you look again at sensor design, because sensor efficiency is limited by well depth and the number of photons hitting each photosite if you're talking about sensors on today's digital cameras..

"Likely not correct" is based upon what? Your wish that the sensor fairy can overcome the physics inherent in catching light?.

(very important!) because of the lenses that focus light on them arenot factored in. Not to mention the electronics (which might be able.

If you mean microlenses, then yes, they are indeed factored in- without them both poor signal to noise ratios and crosstalk would make ultra-small photosites even *more* suboptimal. If you mean the photographic lenses, then you're sadly mistaken, simply take any photographic lens and move it between two cameras of the same era and compare- for instance the D300 and D3- the noise difference is easily apparent..

To use different algorithms because of other sensor properties)behind the whole setup....

It's an analog to digital problem, and we're approaching limits on the analog side of things, no algorithm is going to make up for a lack of photons..

What good is a huge sensor when the design is not optimal for thelens in front of it ?What good is a huge sensor when a smaller but more efficient oneactually registers and processes more light ? .

The "issue" is that the leading edge sensor development happens across the board, as you can fab to any size wafer. If your premise were true, we'd be seeing point and shoot cameras able to keep up with dSLRs, which isn't happening..

The so called fact that noise is depended on sensor size and the sizeof the photosites *only* is way overexaggerated..

In a modern sensor, on a camera from any of the tier one manufacturers, it's the single-biggest issue. Everyone's pretty-much taken care of amplification noise, which is where the most gains were to be had. As much as you'd like to wish it away, the physics are what they are and smaller sensors are at a disadvantage..

Canon's been designing CMOS sensor for a while, here's the dumbed down version from their site:.

Bigger pixels offer higher sensitivity.

A regular bucket with a larger opening can collect more water in a shorter time than a smaller one. This is similar to the larger CMOS sensor compared to the smaller: the large one gathers more light in a shorter time and therefore can respond more sensitively..

Arge-capacity pixels for wider dynamic range.

Wide water buckets of greater depth hold more and have less spillover. In the same way, a larger pixel gathers more light with little or no waste. In CMOS sensors, minimal light overflow and greater capacity mean a wider dynamic range for more subtle gradations, especially in highlight areas. A CMOS sensor with extensive overflow will produce blowout. Smaller pixels are therefore more prone to blowout than larger ones..

Note: Dynamic range is a measure that indicates the scale of fine gradations being preserved from highlight to shadow..

Better S/N ratio from large-capacity pixels.

Given two differently sized pixels handling the same amount of noise, there will be less noise impact on the resulting image of the larger pixel. Since larger-sized pixels catch more light, the signal carries more data than noise within the overall image information. This results in a better signal-to-noise ratio, which is particularly effective for fine gradation in low-light shots..

Note: S/N ratio is a measure indicating optical signal purity. The higher the S/N ratio, the smaller the amount of noise and, therefore, the signal may be described as one of high definition..

Http://web.canon.jp/imaging/cmos/technology-e/size.html.

Just sayin'....

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #13

Oops, I didn't want to step on your toes. I realize that some people have a sort of emotional investment into their equipment and I didn't mean to attack you. What I actually tried to point out was that you just didn't consider *all* the things that matter regarding good image quality..

Http://web.canon.jp/imaging/cmos/technology-e/size.html.

That link is not so good, this one gives a much more detailed understanding of it:.

Http://www.clarkvision.com/...l/digital.sensor.performance.summary/#full_well.

Just sayin'....

Sure, just going with the flow....

And just because it fits:.

Http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/...pher/2008/02/sensor-sizes-pa.html.

Anyway, no hard feelings....

Avaron..

Comment #14

Hi,.

Im not trying to be a prick, but it is my camera that I am going to buy with my own money. I have been looking at these for a while and have decided the features that I want. When I said I wanted a IS camera, I didnt mean a camera brand that say they sells IS lens. I also want a camera that I can use for a while, not "build my way up to it". Thnaks for the advice about the pentax not being great for sports shots, but when I said lots of water polo. I meant lots of polo next to the other sports.

The sony A700 is better for sports I heard, but the Pentax is better for non action shots, so I went with the pentax..

Which Way should I go? Or is there another one that suits my needs that I listed? I do want one with the features and uses, so you guys know, so please dont suggest cameras that dont match it. If Im wrong though, about any of the above, feel free to correct me..

No hard feelingsThanks,Ben..

Comment #15

I heard they corrected that pretty well with the K20D :?Thanks,Ben..

Comment #16

BenYorke wrote:.

Image Stabilazation is a must because I have incredable unstablehands and If I were to photograph sports, I would zoom a lot. Theretwo combined equal blury shots, escpecially during the night..

Even at the shutter speeds necessary to stop subject motion?..

Comment #17

Than sports?.

If anything the Sony probably has less high ISO noise. The 2mp difference is not enough to be noticeable..

You might give up a some weather sealing in exchange for much faster AF, faster FPS and a much better LCD for about the same price..

You give up LV which has it's uses but is not that important. I have it, and have used it once in 5 months..

I'm not a big Sony camera fan, but in this case for what you want to do the Sony would be the better choice..

Gene..

Comment #18

BenYorke wrote:.

I heard they corrected that pretty well with the K20D :?Thanks,Ben.

Ben, in the press release you will notice the comments regarding AF are not highlighted in the first few paragraphs. It is beleived that the AF is not significantly improved from previous models..

I don't want to try and sway you away from Pentax or towards any particular brand but as others have mentioned, IS doesn't do much for fast sports, you really need a fast shutter speed to get that job done. Someone had mentioned that "pro" sports shooters turn IS off and use a monopod, I think it should be made clear that the monopod is most likely used because they are shooting with heavy lenses for a long period of time..

That said, IS does have it's place and you will likely see some benefits with other types of photographs that you do but as Edvinas indicated, the Pentax may not be your best choice. There is yet to be a "perfect" camera produced for everyone, they all have strengths and weaknesses, unfortunately for the pentax AF is it's achilles heal..

Good luck with whatever you purchase...

Comment #19

From my experience and others, The AF issues were in pretty low light. Even my slow DS is quite zippy in daylight. From what K20D users say, it looks to be improved in lower light...

Comment #20

As usual when it comes to discussions involving 4/3rds, oversimplification is the rule, not the exception. True, larger photosites allow for a better noise profile. However, Oly has madegreat strides in the noise department. Looking at the E3 review, one can clearly see that. And practically speaking as a dual system user, the difference is negligible at the most, and undetectable in prints, even larger prints up to 11x14.shinndigghttp://www.pbase.com/shinndigg..

Comment #21

Hi,.

I de3cided to dive and am now thinking of getting the canon 40d. I was looking at the 200, but nikon lens were just to expensive! So I had a couple questions:Is Tameron lens and things still good lens?Is Cameta Camera A reliable seller? (I buy all my stuff from amazon.com).

Is this a good lens to get with the body only: http://www.amazon.com/...hr?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glanceThanks,Ben..

Comment #22

BenYorke wrote:.

Hi,I de3cided to dive and am now thinking of getting the canon 40d. Iwas looking at the 200, but nikon lens were just to expensive! So Ihad a couple questions:Is Tameron lens and things still good lens?.

Some are, some aren't..

But if you're buying a 40D because Nikon lenes are expensive then why are you looking at Tamaron lenses for the 40D?.

The Tamaron, Sigma and Tokina lenses are about the same price for Nikon as they are for Canon..

Is Cameta Camera A reliable seller? (I buy all my stuff from amazon.com).

Yes, but Amazon has the best return policy..

Is this a good lens to get with the body only:.

Http://www.amazon.com/...hr?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance.

No..

You'd be better off spening a little more on the 55-250IS.

Http://www.amazon.com/...UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1204766835&sr=8-1.

Gene..

Comment #23

Sports shooters generally use Canon because over the last decade 2 manufacturers have had an acceptable selection of professional glass for sports -Canon and Nikon (with an edge to Canon because of earlier and more implementation of USM), and only 1 had an acceptable digital body for several years -Canon. When you invest in a 400 2.8 you use that brand for a while. That said, Canon, Nikon and as of this year Olympus (and Expect Sony one day) have acceptable sports systems, however don't expect to see a sudden absence of white lenses on the sideline even with the 1DIII problems and the impressive D3...

Comment #24

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a nice main lens, and the new 70-200 2.8 is supposed to be both very good and very light for a fast 200. That said, if it were my $ and unless I was just really stretching, I would spring the extra $400 for a D300 and the awesome and relatively affordable Nikon 80-200 ED. Much better AF and imo better IQ, and better build. I have shot the D300 (with grip) +80-200 combo and find it very comparable to $6000 1DIII = 70-200 2.8 Canon combo I have also shot...

Comment #25

Hey Gene,.

I didnt want any tameron, sigma, ect... I was jsut wondering because there area lot of them that work with all the brands. ANd why would the lens you suggested be better?And for anyone:.

What do you look for in a lens? What does what mean exactly? I know that the "mm" is how far it goes out (Im pretty sure) and I always forget, even after I read, what the "f" means.Thanks,Ben..

Comment #26

Hey SMPhoto,.

I would love to get the nikon d300, it is an awsome camera I agree, but I simply cant afford it. Not having a large income at all, and my slow rate of saving due to college, I can barely afford one at all. And the lens is 200 bucks cheaper than the cameras taht I am getting. I said in my first post (maybe my profile, and if so I apoligize) that I have a low income.Thanks,Ben..

Comment #27

Oh, and also for anyone:.

Are the nikon lens worth the price? I know that they are awsome lens but on a student salary, would It be wise for me to get a nikon?Thanks,Ben..

Comment #28

BenYorke wrote:.

Hey Gene,I didnt want any tameron, sigma, ect... I was jsut wondering becausethere area lot of them that work with all the brands. ANd why wouldthe lens you suggested be better?.

The lens you listed is an old, slow focusing and not very sharp lens..

The one I listed is a new design (for crop sensors only). Has been getting good reviews, has faster focusing and most importantly it has Canon's newest image stabilization..

And for anyone:What do you look for in a lens?.

First you have to look at what you can afford and go from there..

What does what mean exactly? I knowthat the "mm" is how far it goes out (Im pretty sure) and I alwaysforget, even after I read, what the "f" means..

MM is the focal length of the lens..

F- is basically the aperture- F2.8 means an aperture of 2.8. Lower F numbers means it allows more light to pass through to the sensor or film..

Since budget seems to be a big concern (and it is for most) then the XSi is coming out soon. It will be paired with the 18-55IS kit lens and maybe as a dual lens kit with the afore mention 55-250IS..

This would be a great choice for someone just starting out on a budget..

Gene..

Comment #29

I understand completely. My point was just that you have to balance the price of lens and bodies for total value. The 40D + Canon's cheapest sports lens (70-200 2.8) is $1300 + $1140 for $2440 total. The D300 is $1750 + $914 for 80-200 2.8 is only $2664. That's a 10% difference for quite a bit more camera IMO. Now the 40D plus Sigma 70-200 2.8 (especially used) or the new Tamron 2.8 might offer a slightly more affordable option...

Comment #30

Hey,.

I dont quite get where your coming from that I am going to get a 1000 dollar lens. If money is a problem I am not going to spend 1000 dolars on a lens, escpecially if 1700 for a camera is to muchThanks,Ben..

Comment #31

I got it from the point that you are going to shoot sports. The least expensive lens even REMOTELY capable of shooting sports decently is 70(or 80) - 200 f2.8 zoom. My point was the Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED offers the most bang for the buck of any lens in this class IMO at around $900 new, $650 used, therefore a Nikon body might be worth looking at. If you are thinking of spending $1200 + for a body like 40D or D200/300 and sticking a $300 lens on it don't. Get a decent lens and go cheap on the body. A good lens will last decades, the camera maybe 2-3 years.

If you are looking to get a whole kit under $1000 then either don't expect much, or plan on going used. If I were trying to really cut the cost I would get a used Canon 20D (you might even get lucky and find a good condition original 1D or 30D really cheap but I doubt it) and an used Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM. I think both could be found for around $500 each if they have a few miles on them and then you wouldn't worry so much about banging them around a little...

Comment #32

Used Nikon D70s + Used 80-200 2.8 (I got mine for $650) or Sigma 70-200...

Comment #33

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.