Showing my dumb ...

[tdfugere]

Alrighty .... some explanation before I get to the question(s)

I've never had a photography class in my life. I've been an artist for practically my entire life, and have been taking digital photos since I got my first digital camera (Olympus CZ100) oh back in 2000 or so (the art lending itself to my "photographic eye")(my first real camera being a 110 sometime back in the 80s). I upgraded to the Panasonic Lumix FZ20, then the FZ7 back in September when I dropped the FZ20 in the parking garage at work (floppy lens). You might notice a trend ... I LOVE ZOOM! I've had an acquaintance who is professional photog recently recommend, after seeing my online gallery (see signature), finding an agency to sign up with. Working as a freelance photographer would make me the happiest redhead in the world.

I want to upgrade to a dSLR, but I know SQUAT about lenses, and for the most part nothing about Nikon, Canon, or other traditional camera brands. Reading the reviews here and on other sites, I'm considering:
Nikon D80; Canon EOS 30D or 5D; Fuji FinePix S5 Pro (just out, no review here yet) or maybe the Pentax K10D. I would love to stay with Lumix, but man is the L1 UGLY!!! :p

I've read some of the other threads ... and to answer some questions I can see coming...
-I tend towards macro and scenic/landscape type photography. People move too much!
-I've heard it said that what really matters is not the camera body, but the glass - but again, I know nothing about lenses :confused:
-Price is a little issue - I can afford to splurge a bit, maybe more than a bit if the hobby can start paying for itself.

That all being said ...

Which dSLR is most suitable for someone just starting out on a dSLR and has the features for continued growth since I really don't want to upgrade every 6 months? Which would be most appropriate/suitable for a "working" freelance photographer - meaning it gets used daily either for work or for nothing more than shooting the cats just to have something to shoot? Are any of them prone to being especially fragile, or can they all pretty muchly take their bumps (obviously not concrete parking garages)?

If the body doesn't matter so much, should I downgrade the above options to something more economic, and just buy better glass (and have my eyes lasered :D )?

Then there's all the questions about turning it from a hobby into a paying job.
Are there any recommendations for specific agencies to register with? Is there a certain genre of d-photography that "sells" better?

I'm going to keep reading through these very informative forums ... is there a "Digital Photog for Dummies" ? I really hate showing my dumb!!

Thanks in advance for your replies
-Tiffany

[AlexMonro]

Wow! Big post with lots of questions. I'll try to answer a few, maybe someone else can chip in with the others.

The most suitable DSLR for someone just starting out is the one they feel comfortable using. The best way to judge this is to get down to a camera shop and try them in your hand, and how things look through the viewfinder.

That said, there might be some specific features that you want - for macro and landscape work, you probably don't need the rapid multi-frame burst mode of some high-end cameras, but you might want in-body anti shake - then again, you might prefer to have your image stabilisation in the lens, there are pros and cons for both systems. Or if you're happy using a tripod, you might not need IS at all.

If you are happy to keep to one lens for a shoot and avoid changing lenses outside, you might have less need of anti-dust systems. The bottom of the range models are often designed to be easy for newbies to use and have pre-programmed scene modes like compacts, but the more professional (and expensive!) models tend to be built to last longer.

Any of the cameras you list could be a good choice, but they all have their own individual characteristics - for example, the Fuji S5 pro has a wider dynamic range, so it can record deeper shadows and brighter highlights without going to featureless black or white. The Canon 5D has a full frame sensor, which gives a wider field of view for a given focal length lens, but some lenses won't work with it. The Pentax K10D has built in anti-shake and anti-dust.

Here's a few links to sites that have an assortment of background info for various levels of knowlege - have a browse around and then come back if you have other specific questions.

Cambridge in Colour Tutorials (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm)
Megapixel.net Articles (http://www.megapixel.net/html/articles.php)
Photozone Techniques (http://www.photozone.de/4Technique/index.html)
PopPhoto How-Tos (http://www.popphoto.com/howto/)

[pagnamenta]

All the cameras you mentioned are great cameras for getting into digital. If you want something to meet all your needs, I would suggest going with Canon or Nikon because they offer a huge variety of lenses and great beginner bodies.

I shoot Canon so I know more about them than Nikon, but something like the Canon XTi or 30D and Nikon D80 and D200 are great cameras for just starting out. If you are like me though, you'll learn fast and want to upgrade to a higher end consumer camera.

A few things to keep in mind are that Canon has less grainy high ISO and Nikon has a better wireless flash system. From there, I see the cameras as equals, they both can get great shots.

A good beginning Canon set up would be the XTi/30D with 17-40mm f4 lens for your landscape and a 60 or 100mm macro lens.

Nikon has roughly the same lenses Canon has in focal length sense, I'm just not sure what they are. If you go Nikon, you can get a D80 with a similar focal length lens, 17-40+ and a macro. The D200 would be an upgrade and the equivalent of the 30D.

Just a few words on lenses. The best image quality lenses will be primes, non-zoom lenses. They'll also have bigger apertures allowing for more light to enter the lens allowing for a faster shutter speed. Canon marks their professional lenses with an L, I'm not sure what Nikon does. When I look for a quality lens, it usually has a low f-stop and it's constant, not to say there aren't some amazing lenses out there that don't have a constant aperture. Also very important is the use of a chromatic correcting element, such as a fluorite element. These lenses will be more expensive because of this and their build quality will be better. Lastly, reviews really help you see how good the lens is and if it performs how you might expect it to.

[jcon]

-I tend towards macro and scenic/landscape type photography. People move too much!
-I've heard it said that what really matters is not the camera body, but the glass - but again, I know nothing about lenses :confused:
-Price is a little issue - I can afford to splurge a bit, maybe more than a bit if the hobby can start paying for itself.

That all being said ...

Which dSLR is most suitable for someone just starting out on a dSLR and has the features for continued growth since I really don't want to upgrade every 6 months? Which would be most appropriate/suitable for a "working" freelance photographer - meaning it gets used daily either for work or for nothing more than shooting the cats just to have something to shoot? Are any of them prone to being especially fragile, or can they all pretty muchly take their bumps (obviously not concrete parking garages)?


-Tiffany

Hello, Tiffany.

Since you mentioned your main focus is macro and landscape, I would suggest the Nikon D80. I have read on a few sites and this one included that Canon is aimed more towards sports photography while Nikon is landscape. If you go by that thinking, Nikon is the way to go.

Before you do make the body decision, you do want to get familiar with the lens line-up for both parties, after all that is the most important part. Also, there are 3rd party lenses that you can use too, like Tamron and Sigma. Both Nikon and Canon offer good high end glass, which is expensive. Most of the time, it just comes down to personal preference. How a camera feels in your hands is a very big key also. You dont want a camera that feels uncomfortable in your hands.

The reason I chose Nikon over Canon was the Nikon lighting is better than Canon, the SB-600 and SB-800 speedlights are AMAZING! Oh and Nikon had some pretty cool TV commercials:cool:

Some would say Canon has slightly better ISO performance, to me, if they do, its hardly noticeable, and for you, I dont see that being an issue since you didnt mention alot of low light photography.

Here is a nice site to visit that has pictures taken with bodies and lenses from both Nikon and Canon. PBase.com go there and have a look.

[jcon]

.....Nikon D80 and D200 are great cameras for just starting out.

LOL!!! D200 great for just starting out!!!:confused: Sure, while youre at it, why not just tell someone thats never swam before to jump in the ocean.


If you are like me though, you'll learn fast and want to upgrade to a higher end consumer camera....


Uhhhh, then what is the D200?

[coldrain]

What is said above about Nikon being better for landscape and Canon better for sports, is in short, not true.

Traditionally with the advent of the professional SLRs from Nikon and Canon in the early 1970's, Nikon went for the sports shooter while Canon aimed at the nature photographer with their F-1.

But Nikon has dropped the ball in the 1980's and now most professional sports photographers and journalists use Canon.

This by no means means that Canon would be less capable in landscape photography! I could not think of one single reason why Nikon would be better in this respect.

You say you are mostly interested in nature photography... I fail to see what the supposed flash superiority of a D200 has to do with landscapes and macro photography too.

I would suggest a Canon EOS 30D or, if you like me do not mind a lighter and smaller camera, a Canon XTi/EOS 400D. The Canon CMOS sensors perform better noise wise in longer exposures or higher ISO settings, and this may be worthwile. It is for me, and I am a macro/landscape nature photographer mostly... And I do need to use ISO 400 or even 800 at times, and here the Canons already have a very noticable advantage.

With a nice standard zoom, like a Sigma 18-50 EX DC Macro, Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II, Tokina 16-50 f2.8 DX, or Canon EF 17-40 f4 L.
This would be for the walk around landscape photography.
The Canon EF-S 17-55 IS USM is a great lens, but with its $1000 it might be a bit above your budget?

The Canon 100mm f2.8 USM macro is a very good macro lens, which allows a bit of distance to yout subject still.
The Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro is also a very high quality macro lens, but it does extend while focussing, and its AF is a bit more noisy.
Both are very worthwhile macro lenses.

If you want to go even wider, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 and the Tokina 12-24mm f4 lenses may offer you a wider view in future.

[swgod98]

Wow...all the advantages of the 30D have nothing to do with landscape photography.

[coldrain]

Wow...all the advantages of the 30D have nothing to do with landscape photography.
Less noise in dark areas has nothing to do with photography? Good colour rendition has little to do with that either?

Or the 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM? Or the Canon 17-55 IS USM? Which are optically better, and less expensive than Nikon counterparts? Or the EF 17-40 F4 L which has no Nikon counterpart?
Or in this case, the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 macro which is a better lens than both the 105mm Nikon macro lenses, both in resolution, contrast and price? Right.

Yes, I will advice Nikon to everyone from now on, because it is your beloved make. And you may just stop all these senseless posts.
Sorry to "insult" your chosen camera make, which I am oh so sure was based on real 'arguments'.

I will hide my Nikon Nikkormat FTn in shame to not show that is where my photography began... and that my choice for a Canon DSLR is based on REAL arguments.

Thou shalt not advice a Canon, even if there are real advantages.

[pagnamenta]

LOL!!! D200 great for just starting out!!!:confused: Sure, while youre at it, why not just tell someone thats never swam before to jump in the ocean.

Uhhhh, then what is the D200?


jcon, the D200 would be a great camera from someone who is a quick learner and will want to upgrade from the D80 shortly after purchasing it. My first dslr was the original Rebel (300d) and within the first 6 months found myself needing an upgrade. It's not that the 300d wasn't perfectly capable of great photos and it's not that I didn't do my research, it's that I thought I would take a long time to learn photography. I now have my 30D and find it suitable, plus it's a huge jump cost wise to a Mark II.

If the OP is a quick learner, she might find the D200 offers more control, settings, and it feels different than the D80.

The D200 is a high end prosumer camera, an upgrade to the D80. I compare it to the 30D, the only advantage to me being the weather sealing and all the extra buttons and fancy nick naks and whistles Nikon puts on their bodies.

[swgod98]

*jibberish*

The 30D is HARDLY better at high ISO performance. Ya, I'd agree it's better...but, by a small margin. And Lanscape photography does not use high ISO settings. Neither does macro photography for the most part.

I did not say the 30D wasn't a good choice. I just don't think it's the best choice.

And this has NOTHING to do with Nikon vs. Canon (IMO). You are the one inferring that.

[pagnamenta]

Whether this is a Nikon vs. Canon thing doesn't matter. We're supposed to be helping the OP out.

Whether it's just said that Canon has beter high ISO performance than Nikon doesn't matter; the facts prove it. If you compare consumer bodies the Canon will win. Yes, outdoor nature photography doesn't need high ISO but if you're shooting marco without flash, you'll probably need higher ISO. Again, if you're shooting action outdoors you might need a higher ISO to capture the action.

Wow...all the advantages of the 30D have nothing to do with landscape photography.

You're comment was so open ended that it could be taken either way. I don't know what camera you have, Nikon or Canon, but you can't take what coldrain said that personally. jcon thought my advice was worthless, but I feel he misunderstood me so I corrected myself. While at first I was pissed I realized he's trying to help the OP and I respect him as a great photographer. Let us conduct ourselve professionally and perhaps take your concerns to coldrain through private messages instead of hijacking the OP's thread.

[pagnamenta]

Tiffany, after reviewing your post, it seems you need to go into the store and look at the cameras. Hold them, play with the settings, look through the view finder (very important) and just get a feel for how they feel.

Regardless of which brand you pick, they both will give you outstanding results. I still recommend the Canon because it'll give you better glass.

[swgod98]

If you compare consumer bodies the Canon will win.

But, in what respect? If the OP doesn't need certain features and wants others...it really boils down to what they want overall. Stating one camera model is better than another based on certain featurs really misses the point that you just stated: We are here to help the OP find the best camera for their needs.

You're comment was so open ended that it could be taken either way.

You're right. And coldrain seems to think I have a biased opinion simply because I own a Nikon. But, I've had first hand experience with the D80 and the 20D (nearly identical to the 30D).

perhaps take your concerns to coldrain through private messages instead of hijacking the OP's thread.

I appreciate your attempt to settle things here civilly, but no hijacking has been done on my part. This is still a discussion over the camera's the OP has interest in.

Unless you're talking about the derogatory flaming, in which case I promise I will not become a part of.

[swgod98]

Tiffany, after reviewing your post, it seems you need to go into the store and look at the cameras. Hold them, play with the settings, look through the view finder (very important) and just get a feel for how they feel.

I think this is the best advice...because if size isn't an issue, why not get the 5D? It has a full frame sensor and doesn't have any crop factor (that just makes lenses have less wide angle for landscaping) and it has by far the best IQ at high ISO, which I don't particularly think is important for her needs, but if you guys do, then it's definitely the best choice.

Price is a bit high, but if it comes down to making money off of the pictures, it's the best of the few mentioned.

[coldrain]

Wow...all the advantages of the 30D have nothing to do with landscape photography.
Just a little snippet from the OP original post:
-I tend towards macro and scenic/landscape type photography. People move too much!
-I've heard it said that what really matters is not the camera body, but the glass - but again, I know nothing about lenses

And the OP also mentions the love for zoom (meaning tele, is MY guess).

So... lets see. Macro and scenic/landscape stuff.
With Macro, especially out door macro stuff, you DO at times need to go above ISO 200. And yes, there is actually a real world difference there, between a Nikon D80 and Canon EOS 30D.
If you like the coarse results the Sony CCD gives, fine. But I do not really, so I advice the 30D. And I do also not like noise in longer exposures at night or in dark areas all that much. I guess again this has no bearing on the OP's photography?

And then there is this thing about lenses. The 10-22.. 17-55.. and 100mm macro I mentioned all are better AND cheaper than the Nikon counterparts. Am I supposed to ignore lenses in a camera body choice now too?

And the tele lens remark. Tele from cheap (70-300 IS USM) to expensive is really a strong point from Canon.

I could also mention the mirror lock up from the 30D and 400D/XTi that I happen to use often with macro photography and scenery photography at dusk.

So, I give all these real points... and you come up with a single line
"Wow...all the advantages of the 30D have nothing to do with landscape photography."

And you do not understand my reaction that oh so wonderful line?

and this:
I did not say the 30D wasn't a good choice. I just don't think it's the best choice.

Why don't you
1. just say what according to YOU is the best choice,
and
2. give actual arguments for that choice?

According to me YOU are the one flaming.

[coldrain]

I think this is the best advice...because if size isn't an issue, why not get the 5D? It has a full frame sensor and doesn't have any crop factor (that just makes lenses have less wide angle for landscaping) and it has by far the best IQ at high ISO, which I don't particularly think is important for her needs, but if you guys do, then it's definitely the best choice.

Price is a bit high, but if it comes down to making money off of the pictures, it's the best of the few mentioned.
The EOS 5D is NOT the best choice at all for landscape photography. It can be the best camera for a lot, from fashion to portrait and wedding photography, but not landscape photography.

Why? Because, as you should know, the full frame sensor tends to vignet quite a bit with wide angle lenses. And unless you enjoy skies with dark corners, you are better off with a 30D with 10-22mm or even 17-55 mm.

5D for everything EXCEPT wide angle stuff.

[pagnamenta]

Why? Because, as you should know, the full frame sensor tends to vignet quite a bit with wide angle lenses. And unless you enjoy skies with dark corners, you are better off with a 30D with 10-22mm or even 17-55 mm.

5D for everything EXCEPT wide angle stuff.

For the OP. Everywhere you go you'll hear both sides arguing their camera is better. You need to decided what works for you and what you feel comfortable using. I've already said both cameras are great, but like already mentioned, you're buying into a brand line. That means you need to look at lenses and Canon has superior and cheaper lenses than Nikon. Take a look at both brand bodies and then think about their lenses, then make your choice.

[swgod98]

There is obivously no contesting your opinions coldrain. But, I'm sure the OP will be happy with the 30D if she so chooses it.

I still recommend a trip to the store as pagnamenta mentioned, since there are other important features to be considered when a camera is actually in ones hands.

[coldrain]

There is obivously no contesting your opinions coldrain. But, I'm sure the OP will be happy with the 30D if she so chooses it.

I still recommend a trip to the store as pagnamenta mentioned, since there are other important features to be considered when a camera is actually in ones hands.
Some things are not opinions, but facts. Fact is the 5D will vignet quite bit at wide angle.
Fact is the 30D has better noise and shadow performance from the D80.
Fact is that the 30D will be nicer for wide angle shots compared to a 5D, concerning wide angle. And that the APS-C wide angle lenses perform better than the wide angle full frame lenses, concerning corner sharpness.
Lens prices are also facts, as are lens performance factors, more or less.

Facts can influence one's opinion and choice, yes I agree with that part.

[swgod98]

Fact is the 5D will vignet quite bit at wide angle.

I didn't realize that...Canon's site is very misleading.

Thanks.

[coldrain]

I didn't realize that...Canon's site is very misleading.

Thanks.
Don't worry, Nikon's website is at least as misleading ;)

Nice to see that your leading source of information is manufactures websites.

It is a very well known phenomenon... and one of the reasons Nikon's D3 full frame is taking so long to show up. And the reason Kodak went through so much trouble with the 1.3x crop factor Leica M8 sensor.

But, you could always leave the advising to people who actually know a few things about some negatives of certain products.

Well, now you know it too... a 5D with a wide angle lens will have quite a bit of vignetting, even when stopped down. And that will show up in landscape photos.

[swgod98]

But, you could always leave the advising to people who actually know a few things about some negatives of certain products.

You just love to belittle people, coldrain. Despite your knowledge, I hope Jeff realizes you're more of a nuisance to this board than you're worth and ban you for good.

[coldrain]

You just love to belittle people, coldrain. Despite your knowledge, I hope Jeff realizes you're more of a nuisance to this board than you're worth and ban you for good.
I already suspected some time you were one of those that are behind the constant complaining to Jeff Keller.

Anyway, I advice to the best of my knowledge, and all you do is belittle that and put into doubt everything I ever post when the brand Nikon is mentioned (didn't you use to have a Panasonic too?)

And yes, I get sarcastic to you when you do that.

What do you think is more valuable? Your brand loyalty which makes you behave the way you do? Or some actual knowledge?

*sigh*

[cdifoto]

A 5D with a full frame lens will vignette as much as a 30D on a crop lens. How much is dependent upon the lens. Some are worse than others. It's not a 5D thing. It's a "how much of the image circle does the sensor cover and how well designed is the lens mounted?" thing.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Tiffany, if you're still here despite all the techno-babble arguments in your "what camera" thread, I just wanted to say you would be happy with any of the current camera offerings. No manufacturer these days is putting out any out and out junk. All you have to do is mount good lenses to it and you'd be tickled pink.

[coldrain]

A 5D with a full frame lens will vignette as much as a 30D on a crop lens. How much is dependent upon the lens. Some are worse than others. It's not a 5D thing. It's a "how much of the image circle does the sensor cover and how well designed is the lens mounted?" thing.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Tiffany, if you're still here despite all the techno-babble arguments, you would be happy with any of the current camera offerings. All you have to do is mount good lenses to it and you'd be tickled pink.
No Don, that actually is not true.

The EOS 5D vignets at shorter focal lengths due to the sensor. The angle the light hits the micro lenses makes some light miss the photo diodes in the corners. That is just a fact.
If you want to verify that yourself, just get a lens under 35mm or so, try it on the 5D and on a full frame film EOS.
You will see that the vignetting is NOT from the lens.

It really is a well known phenomenon. Don't you remember the storm of protests that came lose when Canon released the 25-105 f4 L at the same time as the 5D? About the 24-105 vignetting badly? Well, on film it is a fine lens, including vignetting.

Some figures to illustrate this (on EOS 5D of course):
Lets look at longer focal lengths first.

Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM:
vignetting 70mm: 1.2/0.4 f-stops (fully open/stopped down 2 f-stops)
Vignetting 200mm: 1.5/0.6 f-stops

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DC APO HSM:
vignetting 70mm: 0.8/0.3 f-stops
vignetting 200mm: 1.4/0.9 f-stops

Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro:
vignetting 105mm: 1.0/0.3

Now, some shorter focal lengths.

Canon 25-105mm f4 L IS USM:
vignetting 24mm: 2.3/1.4 f-stops (!!)
vignetting 105mm: 1.4/0.4 f-stops

Canon 17-40 f4 L USM:
vignetting 17mm: 2.5/1.2 f-stops (!!)
vignetting 40mm: 1.3/0.6 f-stops

Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L USM
vignetting 16mm: 2.1/1.2 f-stops (!!)
vignetting 35mm: 1.5/0.5 f-stops

Canon 24mm f2.8:
vignetting 20mm: 2.0/0.8 f-stops (!!)

Now some Canon EOS 20D APS-C figures, to clear some "image circle" doubt.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM (this lens is known for very gradual vignetting from the middle to the edge, doesnt produce "dark corners" because of that, even though you could think that looking at the figures)
vignetting 10mm: 1.5/0.8 f-stops
vignetting 22mm: 1.3/0.4 f-stops

Tamron 11-18mm f4.5-5.6:
vignetting 11mm: 0.8/0.4 f-stops
vignetting 18mm: 0.8-0.3 f-stops

Tokina 12-24mm f4:
vignetting at 12mm: 0.9/0.3 f-stops
vignetting at 24mm: 0.4/0.2 f-stops

ColorFoto has the following to say about it:
"The Canon EOS 5D is the only camera from this test that uses a sensor in full frame format, that almost reaches 13mp. Some problems turn up by default in wide angle ranges upto about 24mm. Here the sharpness goes down at the edges and a very apparent vignetting upto 2.5 f-stops causes dark edges. The sensor structure clearly overshadows the light sensitive pixels with angled hitting rays".

Sorry for the crooked translation ;).

Youcan find more information on this when you read up on the sensor used in the Leica M8, and Nikon is working on a similar solution on their full frame sensor as Leica/Kodak to prevent this vignetting.
And no doubt Canon is working on that too.

A short trip to google quickly finds more information on the subject:
http://www.photoethnography.com/blog/archives/2005/10/info_canon_eos_1.html

http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=446
It has been noted that full-frame sensors such as that used in the EOS 5D may suffer from vignetting (dark corners) when used with wide-angle lenses, especially when the lens isn't stopped down.

http://www.cameralabs.com/features/Canon5D_upgrade/page4g.shtml
The EF-S 17-85mm is well-known for its noticeable light fall-off when zoomed-out to wide angle, but the EF 24-105mm on a full-frame body like the 5D is almost twice as bad. This unfortunately is the big disadvantage of using a body with a full-frame sensor, as it's forced to use the extreme outer areas of lenses. Towards the corners of the frame, the light rays are also striking the sensor's micro-lenses at a shallower angle, which further accentuates the problem.

Sure, the Canon EOS 5D is a great camera. But when you want to go ultra wide, you will find it to vignet a lot more than a 30D for instance.

[swgod98]

I already suspected some time you were one of those that are behind the constant complaining to Jeff Keller.

Anyway, I advice to the best of my knowledge, and all you do is belittle that and put into doubt everything I ever post when the brand Nikon is mentioned (didn't you use to have a Panasonic too?)

And yes, I get sarcastic to you when you do that.

What do you think is more valuable? Your brand loyalty which makes you behave the way you do? Or some actual knowledge?

*sigh*

coldrain, you have everything SO wrong! I've never spoken to Jeff. Believe what you want. That's what you do best. I don't own a Panasonic. Never have. And the only loyalty I have is to give people here an honest opinion of ALL camera's involved so that THEY can make a decision for themselves.

I am always getting from you that Canon is best. If it's not the camera model you're discussing, it's the lenses. No reason to ever buy a Nikon from what I can gather. That's frustrating to hear, because it's not true. But, you always back your crap up with graphs and #'s which in the real world don't always make a difference.

Just as an example: I've seen Pentax (ya Pentax) K100D pictures at ISO1600 that look just as good, if not better, thant the Canon 20D! WHOA...hold your horses, pony!! That just isn't possible!! Don't look at me. But, I saw it (on flickr some time ago). They were beautiful images, and they were posted at decent sizes, well above 800x600 (but, certainly not full size).

So, seriously...if the 20D (on paper) is SO much better than other camera's, why am I not seeing a difference? I can only assume you're going to say it's because of 2 reasons: 1) heavy resizing was done and/or 2) PP techniques

Well, ya...bingo! There's the real world for ya.

In the end, I don't really care what you recommend. I just like to give people "the other side of the coin", if you will. Because you never do. And then what gets to me is that when you're knowledge is questioned, you start posting facts and #'s (perfect example above with Don)...and then if the person still doesn't agree with you, it miraculously becomes a flame war...

And of course, the other person is suddenly brand loyal *boggle*

Look, I can take sarcasm. I can take a little badgering. But, I cannot take you disrespecting me and (most importantly) other people! That's why I get so pissed with you.

I'm not going to say anything to Jeff. But, I'm not going to back down from your overbearing personality either.

Now, we've just ruined this persons thread.

[cdifoto]

I'm not going to say anything to Jeff.

You don't have to. :)

[coldrain]

swgod98, I often recommend people to go for a Nikon DSLR, or a Pentax DSLR, or even a Canon DSLR.
I recommend Fuji, Sony, Canon and whatever compact cameras depending on wishes.

If someone ASKS what is best in certain areas, and I happen to think a Canon is better in that area, I will say so.

In this case, someone asks what is best for landscape and macro photography.
I give my opinion and the why's of my opinion.

I also objected to the strange generalization that "Canon is for sports shooters and Nikon is for landscape shooters".

It was YOU though, who, without actually reacting to what I said about WHY I would recommend the 30D, just gave one sneering line dissing my post.
It must have been my post, since no other post mentioned the 30D.

Yes, I do not recommend the Nikon 40D. And always say why. The exact same reasons jcon gives. jcon who I originally "helped" deciding on his first DSLR, the D50.
And I have never said anything against a D50, or a D80 (unless it is about the sensor performance).
And no, I almost never recommend a D200, because I do not like its sensor's output.
And I often point people to the K100D.

If I do not think a Nikon product is very nice (like the D40(x), 18-135mm kit lens, 70-300G) I always say WHY I do not like it much. Same as with Canon products (you will not catch me being positive about a 17-85 IS USM, or 75-300 USM III for instance).

Even though I always give sources and reasons, I always get attacked by a certain group, which includes you.

It is fine if you point out why YOU like a certain product, instead of just attacking my posts, or if you have any information that shows I would have been misinformed (like, hey coldrain, the D40 does have an internal motor and it does have a 5 point AF system).
That is what a discussion is all about. But after ever so many posts of you just slashing my posts as trolling or flaming, just because I give my reasons why I would not prefer a certain product that happens to have the name Nikon stamped on it, I do react a bit sarcastic to you at times.

I just now gave my reason why I do not think a 5D is the best choice for landscape photography. I really do not think that product bears the Nikon logo.

[Riley]

Leica M8 isnt full frame BTW, its a 1.3 crop
The microlenses on the sensor, and the filter construct are for quite different reasons. Although it does support as a deterrent to falloff

[tdfugere]

Ok ok Ok
I knew I needed to get down to the camera shop, but now it's even more apparent. All of my previous purchases have been on line, but if I'm going to be dropping a couple grand on a body and lenses, this is one purchase that will have to have some hands on ahead of time.

I don't mind smaller cameras, and I have good sized hands, so a bigger camera is ok too - just not a bulky/un-ergonomic one! I also have a tripod, but from what I've read, it might as well double as a coat rack lol. I made it through about half the responses before I just cut here to the end, so I'll continue reading. I appreciate everyone's input, heated and passionate as it is! ;)

Tiffany

[swgod98]

Good luck Tiffany. Let us know how it goes...

It was YOU though, who, // just gave one sneering line dissing my post.

You're right and I apologize for that.

[ander75it]

The EOS 5D vignets at shorter focal lengths due to the sensor.

Actually, some time ago I saw on photo.net a test with (if I recall correctly) 24 1.4 L, 35 1.4 L and 24-105 4 L mounted on EOS 1Ds II, EOS 3, EOS 5D, and vignetting was nearly the same in all cases.

It is a fact that there is vignetting, but I have seen no proof that digital is significantly worse; actually, considering that you can easily correct vignetting in digital, I find it to be a non-issue.

I shoot portaits with primes and I am often wide open, as I don't use flash and I like shallow DOFs, and while I do see vignetting, it's not that evident (and not necessarily bad in portaits, where you often want to concentrate interest in your subject).
Of course if you shoot skies vignetting will be evident, but you shouldn't be shooting landscapes wide open, so it's a non-issue again, mostly used by those who can't shoot full frame :)
OH, by the way, I have shot skies myself with the 24-105 of a friend wide open, and no, there is no black corner, though you can of course see a light drop.

To the thread owner: don't panic with all the options there are, go with what somebody said, choose a camera that gives you good feelings; stay with either Nikon or Canon, as both have great lenses and bodies; and enjoy taking pictures.

[Gopher]

Actually, some time ago I saw on photo.net a test with (if I recall correctly) 24 1.4 L, 35 1.4 L and 24-105 4 L mounted on EOS 1Ds II, EOS 3, EOS 5D, and vignetting was nearly the same in all cases.

All the same sensor size. On a crop, they won't vignette as much. Also depends greatly on how wide-opened you use it.

Vignetting is a great effect.

To the OP: You could give things a dry run by getting an older used DSLR, like a 10D or 20D (probably about $600). Used lenses hold nearly all their value, so go for broke on the glass.

It'll last you a couple of years if you keep your head about you.

[ander75it]

Pictures weren't crops, and the EOS 3 is a film camera. Shots were wide open, AFAIK. I shoot fast primes routinely and I don't see anything strange. Maybe it's a problem with ultra-wides only?

[Riley]

Actually, some time ago I saw on photo.net a test with (if I recall correctly) 24 1.4 L, 35 1.4 L and 24-105 4 L mounted on EOS 1Ds II, EOS 3, EOS 5D, and vignetting was nearly the same in all cases.

It is a fact that there is vignetting, but I have seen no proof that digital is significantly worse; actually, considering that you can easily correct vignetting in digital, I find it to be a non-issue.


indeed digital is substantially different in behaviour than film
light coming through a lens to film/sensor is not always straight in its path
light that hits a sensor at an angle will not register correctly as it will with film
and creates softer edges, lower contrasts, and light fall off at the edges

longer lenses are more telecentric, and avoid this to a degree
the shorter the register (film to lens distance) the more susceptible
wide angle and fast lenses are more susceptible to more angular light

avoidance generally (not always) is to avoid lower stops

[cdifoto]

Bigma vignettes pretty bad on the 5D as well. Last time I owned it it wasn't an ultrawide. Just ultrahuge.

[coldrain]

Of course some lenses vignet on full frame, that is normal when the lens tube is not wide enough and such, and then the vignetting goes down when stopping down.

This has nothing to do with the extra light fall off you can see with wide angle, though.