My first DSLR - advice appreciated

[FlexiPack]

Hi

I would really appreciate some advice to help me decide which SLR to buy. I am a first time DSLR buyer, I have an old Canon 500N film SLR (which I lost the kit lens for). I still have a Tamron 80-200mm for that camera though and partially for that reason I’m thinking of going for the Canon 400D.

There are a couple of gripes about that camera that is making me hesitant. I’m still very much a beginner, I never got past using the auto functions of my 500N despite the buying it was to self teach myself manual photography whilst having auto functions in the mean time.

My budget is not high, not more than £750 I’d say, though if the camera I needed was above that I will save longer and wait.

There are my issues with the 400D

No Shake reduction – I’m unsure how much of an issue this will be. I don’t have the steadiest of hands but keeping an SLR steady is easier than a compact. As none of the entry level SLR’s have SR, Is it really worth an extra £250 for one that does? SR lenses are too expensive for my budget.

Spot Metering – I predominantly use spot metering on my compact (fuji finepix F30 – great cam by the way!). I’m so disappointed the 400D doesn’t have this. I notice it does have CW metering, is this similar to spot? Also with no spot I’m wondering if I wont be able to exposure lock on the centre of the frame.

The big plus points for the canon are the good iso performance – as I’m not able to carry a tripod around with me the majority of the time. Also the fact I already have a Tamron 80-200mm lens from my old Canon. Though what I’m unsure of is, are there adaptors that would enable me to use this lens on other cameras such as pentax/Nikon?

If I was to go for a different camera because of the lack of SR and spot metering then I am looking at the Pentax K10D, but it’s seems a bit excessive for a beginner such as myself. I’ve also read off putting news about its high ISO performance but that’s only a minor issue.

Thanks,

Flex

[cdifoto]

Hi

I would really appreciate some advice to help me decide which SLR to buy. I am a first time DSLR buyer, I have an old Canon 500N film SLR (which I lost the kit lens for). I still have a Tamron 80-200mm for that camera though and partially for that reason I’m thinking of going for the Canon 400D.

There are a couple of gripes about that camera that is making me hesitant. I’m still very much a beginner, I never got past using the auto functions of my 500N despite the buying it was to self teach myself manual photography whilst having auto functions in the mean time.

My budget is not high, not more than £750 I’d say, though if the camera I needed was above that I will save longer and wait.

There are my issues with the 400D

No Shake reduction – I’m unsure how much of an issue this will be. I don’t have the steadiest of hands but keeping an SLR steady is easier than a compact. As none of the entry level SLR’s have SR, Is it really worth an extra £250 for one that does? SR lenses are too expensive for my budget.

Spot Metering – I predominantly use spot metering on my compact (fuji finepix F30 – great cam by the way!). I’m so disappointed the 400D doesn’t have this. I notice it does have CW metering, is this similar to spot? Also with no spot I’m wondering if I wont be able to exposure lock on the centre of the frame.

The big plus points for the canon are the good iso performance – as I’m not able to carry a tripod around with me the majority of the time. Also the fact I already have a Tamron 80-200mm lens from my old Canon. Though what I’m unsure of is, are there adaptors that would enable me to use this lens on other cameras such as pentax/Nikon?

If I was to go for a different camera because of the lack of SR and spot metering then I am looking at the Pentax K10D, but it’s seems a bit excessive for a beginner such as myself. I’ve also read off putting news about its high ISO performance but that’s only a minor issue.

Thanks,

Flex

Shake reduction - just bump up the ISO. At this point in-body IS is a gimmick thrown in by manufacturers without IS lenses or sensors that have clean high ISO capability. Canon has both great IS lenses AND very clean high ISO sensors. IS doesn't help with stopping action anyway so it's only good for subjects that don't move or move very very little.

Spot metering - your Fuji's spot meter probably covers a larger area than the 400D's center-weighted metering mode. If you really want/need spot metering (which I really doubt), you can upgrade to a 30D which has it. I have the 30D and still rarely use spot.

[Vich]

I would humbly disagree with CDI about in-camera IS. Canon is content to charge a fortune for in-lens IS, and that's the way to go if you can afford it, but what if you can't? It is also unavailable on 2/3's of their lens lineup.

There are a couple of modestly priced Canon IS lenses that perform very well (28-135 and 70-300) but the 17-85 has poorer image quality.

That said; if it were my intro to a DSLR; I would not trade in-camera IS for lousy high-ISO performance, and that's exactly what the Pentax has to offer. It experiences "banding" above ISO 400. That's faintly visible differences in the darker areas that travel vertically down the photo.

The Canon 1D professional camera released in 2002 had banding. They managed to fix it quickly enough and (IMO) it shouldn't be tolerated in any camera.

I would hardily agree with CDI's comment on spot-metering. If you never even go out of Auto, then you surely won't miss spot-metering!

The Canon XTi (the 400) is a great choice but, for me, not a hands-down clear winner. I know little about it, but check out the Sony lineup.

[cdifoto]

I would humbly disagree with CDI about in-camera IS. Canon is content to charge a fortune for in-lens IS, and that's the way to go if you can afford it, but what if you can't? It is also unavailable on 2/3's of their lens lineup.

I'm not dismissing in-camera IS altogether, that's why I said "at this point" it's a gimmick. Nice to have, but it doesn't really do anything to "trump" the Canon lineup with its superior high ISO performance. It would be a Canon killer if it was basically a high ISO clean machine with IS on top of that. As of now all it does is let you squeeze slightly more use out of what amounts to its ISO400 limitation. That, to me, is a gimmick.

If I have a 100mm lens I can't stop basic action (walking, etc) with ISO400 and 1/30th but I can with ISO1600 and 1/120th. Either way I don't have camera shake. Where in-camera IS can come in handy is with longer lenses in normal light. I can't really handhold a 300mm lens at 1/100th. I could if I had some IS, assuming it's actually that effective.

[Vich]

I'm not dismissing in-camera IS altogether, that's why I said "at this point" it's a gimmick. Nice to have, but it doesn't really do anything to "trump" the Canon lineup with its superior high ISO performance. It would be a Canon killer if it was basically a high ISO clean machine with IS on top of that. As of now all it does is let you squeeze slightly more use out of what amounts to its ISO400 limitation. That, to me, is a gimmick.

If I have a 100mm lens I can't stop basic action (walking, etc) with ISO400 and 1/30th but I can with ISO1600 and 1/120th. Either way I don't have camera shake. Where in-camera IS can come in handy is with longer lenses in normal light. I can't really handhold a 300mm lens at 1/100th. I could if I had some IS, assuming it's actually that effective.
Don, do you know if the Sony has banding?

If it's got Nikon-like performance, I think it's a serious contender. The Nikon D200 (I believe the sensors are identical) has decent ISO 1600 performance. Not a Canon killer, but a likely contender, Yes.

Someone was commenting the Sony is noisey as hell with all the IS and sensor cleaning, and even vibrated. The silence of modern Canon in-lens IS is dreamlike. That should be considered too.

Since FlexiPack indicated he'll often be needing high-ISO, I would wholeheartedly agree that Pentax isn't a good choice, particularly because it costs more.

[cdifoto]

Don, do you know if the Sony has banding?

If it's got Nikon-like performance, I think it's a serious contender. The Nikon D200 (I believe the sensors are identical) has decent ISO 1600 performance. Not a Canon killer, but a likely contender, Yes.

Someone was commenting the Sony is noisey as hell with all the IS and sensor cleaning, and even vibrated. The silence of modern Canon in-lens IS is dreamlike. That should be considered too.

Since FlexiPack indicated he'll often be needing high-ISO, I would wholeheartedly agree that Pentax isn't a good choice, particularly because it costs more.

I can't say whether the Sony has banding or not. I haven't really looked at it that close or heard from enough owners. I believe the Nikon D200 is pretty nice with its higher ISO. Like you said - not quite Canon but not something to ignore either. I have heard that for some reason, despite being the same sensor, the Sony isn't as clean.

All I really know is that despite the in-camera IS that some of these bodies have, Nikon and Canon are still the only real contenders in the high ISO arena. IS just doesn't replace fast shutter speeds and that's what some of these other companies seem to be ignoring.

[FlexiPack]

Thanks for your input folks it's really useful. I did consider the Sony Alpha but was immediately put off by it's poor performance on 800+ ISO. I've just dug out my 500N together my remaining lens (which is 80-210mm, not 200 as i'd said earlier) to see how steady i am. Hmm im not overly steady but i don't know what is classed as 'steady' when holding an SLR and unfortunately i wont know how much this will impact on my photo's until I've used the 400D in the real world. If only you could test drive them!

I know i can always crank up the ISO but i prefer not to go above 400. With regards to spot metering. I fully intend to step out of the Auto comfort zone Vich so with this in mind do you a photographer working with AV,TV and manual would miss it? My fuji F30 has spot, average and multi metering and 90% i use spot.

I'd be interested in hearing from users whose camera lacks spot metering on whether they miss it or not. For instance would the centre weighted or partial centre do the trick just as well. I'm a bit confused as to how much difference there between those and spot.

Flex

[cdifoto]

Thanks for your input folks it's really useful. I did consider the Sony Alpha but was immediately put off by it's poor performance on 800+ ISO. I've just dug out my 500N together my remaining lens (which is 80-210mm, not 200 as i'd said earlier) to see how steady i am. Hmm im not overly steady but i don't know what is classed as 'steady' when holding an SLR and unfortunately i wont know how much this will impact on my photo's until I've used the 400D in the real world. If only you could test drive them! Typical rule of thumb is 1/focal length for shutter speed. e.g. a 200mm lens should have 1/200th on a full frame, or 1/320th on a crop camera because of the focal length "extension" (long story, debate, etc over this - don't want to get into it here.)

I know i can always crank up the ISO but i prefer not to go above 400. With regards to spot metering. I fully intend to step out of the Auto comfort zone Vich so with this in mind do you a photographer working with AV,TV and manual would miss it? My fuji F30 has spot, average and multi metering and 90% i use spot. You're coming from film. ISO400 on most current cameras is like ISO100/200 in film as far as noise goes. ISO800 is still cleaner than ISO400 film. Bumping up the ISO isn't a big deal at all on most cameras, especially the Canons. It's nothing to shoot ISO1600 if you get the exposure right in-camera.

I'd be interested in hearing from users whose camera lacks spot metering on whether they miss it or not. For instance would the centre weighted or partial centre do the trick just as well. I'm a bit confused as to how much difference there between those and spot. My 10D doesn't have spot metering, my XTs didn't have spot metering, but my 30D does. I don't use it on my 30D much at all, and I use my 10D more than my 30D. I feel no great loss of not having spot. The "spot" on the 30D isn't really that much smaller than the "Center Weighted" on the 10D. It's not the 1 degree like you'd have on some handheld spot meters. I think it's more like 3 degrees, with the Center Weighted being 9 degrees.

Flex

Responses in Bold.

[FlexiPack]

Ah I think i understand what you're saying. So if I can shoot a steady shot at shutter speed = focal length x focal magnification (which is x1.6 on the 400d - i think?) then that is steady and i should be ok. I realise it's only a rough esitmate but it gives me a starting point at least.

What you said about ISO400 equating to ISO 100/200 on film is interesting, I didn't know that and it does ease my mind more about shooting at 400/800. My Fuji F30 has wonderful low light performance but I'm betting (hoping) that the 400d will be even better due to larger imaging chip and wider max aperture.

I've been doing some reading about spot and partial metering and to be honest i don't think i'll miss it. Multi zone/Evaluative seems the way to go most of the time and when i need spot, partial is almost as good.

I'm pretty set on the 400D now, all i need now is money ;)

thanks guys!

[cdifoto]

Ah I think i understand what you're saying. So if I can shoot a steady shot at shutter speed = focal length x focal magnification (which is x1.6 on the 400d - i think?) then that is steady and i should be ok. I realise it's only a rough esitmate but it gives me a starting point at least. Yes that's an approximation. Some people are steadier, some are shakier. It's a good starting point to work with. With a little shooting experience you'll know what your personal thresholds are.

What you said about ISO400 equating to ISO 100/200 on film is interesting, I didn't know that and it does ease my mind more about shooting at 400/800. My Fuji F30 has wonderful low light performance but I'm betting (hoping) that the 400d will be even better due to larger imaging chip and wider max aperture. I want to make sure I'm clear on this. ISO400 is the same across the board sensitivity wise. In other words ISO400 on film gives the same shutter speeds at the same apertures as ISO400 on digital. I'm just saying ISO400 on modern digital SLRs is cleaner. The XTi will blow the Fuji F30 away. The most important factor in keeping ISO noise down is nailing that exposure....watch the histogram and get the proper exposure and you'll be amazed. See image links below*

I've been doing some reading about spot and partial metering and to be honest i don't think i'll miss it. Multi zone/Evaluative seems the way to go most of the time and when i need spot, partial is almost as good. In most conditions partial or center weighted is close enough. I generally use evaluative for not-so-difficult shooting since it usually balances the entire scene fairly well. The more challenging stuff like a backlit subject are when I move to the other mode(s).

I'm pretty set on the 400D now, all i need now is money ;)

thanks guys!

In bold again. Seems easier that way. :)

*These are all at ISO1600 with the 30D and the XT - which preceded the XTi. They aren't full size images, and some have been run through NeatImage noise reduction software....but it shows you what's possible at least at this size. Some have been cropped, some are as-framed.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/ashlin/2006-08-26-126.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/ashlin/2006-08-26-159.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/experimental/2006-08-31-004.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/experimental/2006-08-06-002bw.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/florida/2006-05-04_691.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/florida/2006-05-04_682.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/florida/2006-05-04_650-002.jpg

[themayor]

Check out this GREAT review at www.KenRockwell.com

[cdifoto]

Check out this GREAT review at www.KenRockwell.com

LOL. Right. Ken Rockwell is the last guy to go to for a review. At least for a serious one...

[FlexiPack]

In bold again. Seems easier that way. :)

*These are all at ISO1600 with the 30D and the XT - which preceded the XTi. They aren't full size images, and some have been run through NeatImage noise reduction software....but it shows you what's possible at least at this size. Some have been cropped, some are as-framed.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/ashlin/2006-08-26-126.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/ashlin/2006-08-26-159.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/experimental/2006-08-31-004.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/experimental/2006-08-06-002bw.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/florida/2006-05-04_691.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/florida/2006-05-04_682.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/florida/2006-05-04_650-002.jpg

The lack of noise in those photos is quite amazing. I realise they're not full size but still. I'm tempted to run some of my Fuji F30's ISO 1600 shots through NeatImage too give myself a comparison - just curious.

Thanks for your help!

[cdifoto]

The lack of noise in those photos is quite amazing. I realise they're not full size but still. I'm tempted to run some of my Fuji F30's ISO 1600 shots through NeatImage too give myself a comparison - just curious.

Thanks for your help!

Thanks. I think I only ran a couple of those through NeatImage. The wedding ones are definitely straight.

[themayor]

LOL. Right. Ken Rockwell is the last guy to go to for a review. At least for a serious one...

He took the time to write a serious review of a groundbreaking camera ...which I own...You Don't...and I love it...Taking pics is FUN again.....You're no Ken Rockwell !!!CANON MAN.......THE CANON REIGN IS OVER !!!