First DSLR - $2000 Budget

[longroad]

I've been wanting to upgrade to a DSLR for so long and now I can finally afford it. I'm excited :)

At the moment my budget is $2000 Australian dollars for a camera AND lenses. I realise I wont get all the types of lenses I want/need for that price, but it would be good if I could get my mandatory ones with that budget.

I've been using a Panasonic FZ20 for the past 2.5 years and still love it. Im going to keep that camera but i want a DSLR for everything they have to offer. I also want larger aperture ranges etc that the FZ20 doesnt have.

Budget
$2000AUD including lens/s

Size
Doesn't matter

Features

How many megapixels will suffice for you? I'll take what they give me.

* What optical zoom will you need? (None, Standard = 3x-4x, Ultrazoom = 10x-12x, Other - Specify)
The bigger the better I guess?

* How important is “image quality” to you? (Rate using a scale of 1-10)
10 thanks

Do you care for manual controls?
Very much so

General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for?
Everything.. Landscapes, Wildlife, Portraits, Parties, Outdoor, Indoor, Sports, Cars, Kids, Flowers, Insects..

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?
I'd like to

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos?
Around 30% of my photos will be indoor, the rest outdoor.

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos?
Yes especially soccer matches and car racing

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate?
I want a Canon or Nikon

Are there particular models you already have in mind?
Canon 400D - fits my price range but how far short does it fall from the ones below? -
Nikon D80, Canon 30D - both nearly exceed my budget on body alone.

Here are links to give you idea of price here (too expensive in AUS!)
http://www.camerafarm.com.au/camera/customer/home.php?cat=273
http://www.camerafarm.com.au/camera/customer/home.php?cat=345
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod4269.htm

For the long term am I better off spending more for a D80 or 30D rather than the 400D? I will be keeping this camera for a long time so want something I wont regret in 2 or 3 years time.

Any other suggestions are welcome here, these are just 3 i came up with.


(If applicable) Do you need any of the following special features? (Wide Angle, Image Stabilization, Weatherproof, Hotshoe, Rotating LCD)
Wide angle and Image Stabilization would be nice

I am pretty lost when it comes to lenses.

I know to start with I want a good zoom lens. I want to be able to zoom in on wildlife, that is my main goal with this camera.
I want to be able to zoom in ALOT more than my FZ20 does.
Is this lens any good?
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod4256.htm

I also want a good wide angle for landscape shots of mountains, oceans etc.
I wouldnt mind a lens that is a bit of an all rounder that I can just throw on when I want to take some quick snaps (although the FZ20 will be kept with me for this purpose too).

Later on I want a macro lens but that can wait.

Cant wait to read your responses :)

[Rooz]

FYI: i have bought all my gear from this place and never had a problem. have always found them to be cheap and professional. if you live in sydney you can pick it up, (they are in Nth Sydney), and save postage cost and postage worries too.

d80 body $1288. d80 with 18-135mm kit lens, $1699
http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/nikond80.htm

30d body $1549; enthusiast kit with lens is $2350
http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/canon30d.htm

400d body $1079; with kit lens, $1169; with Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens, $1890
http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/canon400d.htm

if you want to strictly stick to budget, the 400d is excellent value. if you bought it with kit lens, you have another $900 odd to get a good long range lens and bag etc. that should fit your needs pretty good. as long as your outdoor sports are taken during the day in pretty good light, all those lens' will do the job speedwise.

[swgod98]

I shoot soccer with my D80 and I can't tell you how often I find myself wishing I had 5fps (instead of 3fps). Sure, one can get by without it...but, it's not difficult to appreciate the difference when it's at your fingertips.

I say spring for the 30D if you can.

Short of that, it's a tossup between the XTi and D80 based on price/features.

[longroad]

Thanks Rooz, I hadn't heard of that place and yes I am in Sydney.

What are those kit lenses like for each of those cameras?

Soccer games won't be my priority. Animals and landscapes are number 1 for me.
But 5fps would be nice anyway..

I guess what I really want to know is HOW MUCH better is the 30D or D80 over the 400D?
Are there any other models I should be considering? I don't want to leave any options out (Canon or Nikon only please).

The kit lens for the 30D brings it to $800 more over just the body price, what sort of kit lens is that, a pretty damn good one :confused:

The other kit lenses listed by Rooz only increase the price over the body only by a couple of hundred dollars. Why such a huge difference with the 30D kit lens?

[T06]

Well here goes the bubble.POP! It's expensive. If you want sharp & zoom it's really expensive. maybe I'm wrong but to me you explained the higher end of dslr, & no I didn't say the top end. We all have wishes though:) . The Canon lens you asked of, well, it's like this, if you want a good lens, you have to pay for it, there are no bargains as far as glass(lenses) are concerned unless you have a very good friend that owns a camera shop, oh yeah, if you do can we do a barbie sometime, I'll supply everything.;) :D
Added:- if you talk of kit lenses state what they are. Your comment on the comparison of cameras is your choice, look into the lens side of things etc as what you decide on will be with you for the rest of your life unless you have a shitload of money.

[Rooz]

i don;t think you will notice any difference in the body's for the shooting you are going to do. the reason the 30d kit is a massive jump for the lens is cos it is the 17-85 IS lens which is an excellent lens. a friend of mine who shoots canon has this one and uses it as his general walk-around. the other kit lens as part of the 400d kit pack is a pretty shitty canon kit jobby which in all honesty is sub-par for a dslr of the quality we are talking about.

the nikon kit lens seem to be of a much better standard for a baseline than the canon piece of crap. the only thing i would be concerned about with the much better 18-55mm canon lens from your point of view is that 85mm may not be long enuf in range for you. like i said, strictly on a budget the 400d is a great cam and you can get more bang for your buck. the canon guys will recommend canon lens much better than i can for landscape and telephot choices.

remember that your budget needs, (i'm guessing), to get you the memory card, (about $100), and a bag, ($70-150 odd). nikon d80 plus 18-135 kit is well within your budget and you can still pick up a memory card, good quality bag and still have some change. this will give you the added range, your accessories and decent quality lens as a starting point until you're more certain what range you want and more importantly what your willing to invest for the future. you can prob pick up the 50mm f1.8 within your $2k limit aswell which is a fantastic portrait lens. its only about $200 odd. you may even be able to get a filter aswell for a shade over $2k which will come in handy for bright shiny days at the track where reflections and sun glare can be an issue.

if you don;t go for the 18-135mm d80 kit combo, here are some alternatives for lens'. you won;t be able to adequately cover all of your options perfectly unforunately within that price range.

d80 body - 1290

general lens:
sigma 17-70mm - 515
sigma 24-70mm - 530
nikkor 18-200mm VR - 1200

landscapes:
sigma 10-20mm - 675

telephoto zooms:
nikkor 70-300mm VR - 825
there is also a 55-200mm VR coming out shortly at a good price apparently.

intersting thing here is that i started by being convinced on getting the 400d cos the value for money seemed outstanding. that was until i held it in my hands and it felt awful, (totally subjective and personal). so the big question here is...have you held these cameras in your hands ? this will really make a big difference cos from a shooting point of view, all 3 bodies are excellent choices.

while it would be nice to have the 30d, unless your really willing to spend a fair bit more, it sounds well outside your price range. if your lucky, the 400d will feel good for you and you;ll get a great starting kit within your budget range.

a good idea would be to visit the canon/ nikon forums and see the discussion on lens' and photos from some of them. good luck with whatever you choose. :)

[Rooz]

Well here goes the bubble.POP!.

i don;t recall him saying it was for his honeymoon T. :confused:

:D

[T06]

get ya brain outa the gutta.:D

[longroad]

No I havent held any in my hand yet. But i hear the D80 feels great whilst the 400D is not so good.
Why do you say the 30D is way out of my price range? It seems only a little more expensive then the D80.

I am leaning towards the D80 though.. the 400D whilst a great camera does seem to be a little more entry level than the D80?

I already have SD cards and a bag so no need to factor that in. I like the D80 because it uses SD cards too which is the same as my FZ20 so no need for me to buy new cards straight away.

It's so hard to make a decision!

I'm considering ruling out the 400D altogether.. although I would LOVE to spend less my instinct is telling me that I'll get more out of the D80... :confused:

[Rooz]

am sure the 400d feels good to some ! its very personal. if you're willing to comprimise your budget, the 30d body is only $250 more i suppose so yeah, you're right it's in the ball park.

tough decision mate. let us know how you go with it. what part of sydney you in btw ?

[longroad]

South west ;)

I've just spent 2 hours reading many reviews of the 400D and D80. Im skipping the 30D for now.

All reviews seem to favour the D80 in most respects.. the only downside I'm worried about is the softer images which in my opinion is quite noticeable against the 400D. But i'm sure this can be rectified by setting a higher sharpness on the camera settings?

Hmm so if I go with the D80 and kit lens, what one other lens do you think I should buy to start with?
I've only just learnt about prime lenses. Should I get one of those to go with the kit lens or would something else be a better choice?

[coldrain]

The 400D has the edge over the D80 in image quality from ISO 400 and up though. In JPEG the D80's noise reduction eats away at details in a strange way. I do not exactly know how the RAW would really compare, but the 400D's sensor delivers a bit better results than the Sony CCD in the D80.

[Rooz]

South west ;)

I've just spent 2 hours reading many reviews of the 400D and D80. Im skipping the 30D for now.

All reviews seem to favour the D80 in most respects.. the only downside I'm worried about is the softer images which in my opinion is quite noticeable against the 400D. But i'm sure this can be rectified by setting a higher sharpness on the camera settings?

Hmm so if I go with the D80 and kit lens, what one other lens do you think I should buy to start with?
I've only just learnt about prime lenses. Should I get one of those to go with the kit lens or would something else be a better choice?

the 50mm prime is brilliant and probably the best value for money lens around. great low light performance, excellent for portraits.

[longroad]

I wont be using RAW much.. Im not really into Photoshop so I'm looking to get the best possible photos straight out of the camera.

I like the D80's extensive settings options too, seems to have an edge over the 400d on that front as well?

[longroad]

the 50mm prime is brilliant and probably the best value for money lens around. great low light performance, excellent for portraits.

If portraits aren't a priority for me would it still be worth getting? Or will the kit lens suffice for portraits?

Which would you recommend more out of these two:
AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D
AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

I'm assuming the first one although its about $150 more

[Rooz]

i don;t think the f1.4 is worth the extra money. i got the 1.8 and am more than happy with it. i reckon you may want to stick with the kit lens for a while to get used to things and then have a look at your photos to see what focal length you use most. there are lots of great primes out there. not sure how much you'll use it though. tough to be swapping over to a prime on a soccer field or down at eastern creek in the dusty wind.

i originally got the 18-135 cos i was on a similar budget. i regretted it though and ended up getting the 18-200 VR not too long after. there's the extra focal length you need for motor racing and it's got VR for any low light photos you may wanna take at some stage. it is a fair bit more dosh, up to you...just letting you know my story. (the VR is a heavy bugger mind you.)

then again...you may lash out and get the 70-300mm VR or the super fast f2.8 200mm...ahhh the joys of SLR's.

[longroad]

Hmm maybe I should skip the kit lens altogether and get the 18-200 VR like you.. I value your advice here and trust you and believe that could be a better option for me :)
Is that this one? It doesnt seem to be called VRII
http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/nikonslracc.htm#18-200mm
See their note about the price :(

So of course i am worried about dust on the sensor.. how much of a problem is it? If i am out somewhere where there is a bit of dust/dirt flying around should I not even consider changing the lens?
Have you ever had your sensor cleaned and is dust a huge problem for you?

Also another question.. image stabilization. How big an issue is this in the D80?

[Rooz]

the 18-200 is a VR, (vibration reduction), lens which is the nikon equivalent to IS. works brilliantly as does canon's IS. but keep in mind VR/ IS only works when the object isn't moving. if the object is moving and there is low light, it will blur regardless of what stabilisation system you use.

my very simple test of VR is here.
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29652

as for sensor dust, i have never had a dust problem, not now nor with my canon eos 35mm. you just gotta be cautious. pretty easy to blow it out 95% of the time anyway.

EDIT: yeah thats the one, i think the cheapest i have ever seen it is at around 1200. it's in very high demand and there was a massive shortage of the lens in Oz.

if you want the range, you could always get the sigma 17-70mm and the 70-300mm VR nikkor, that probably works out to be around the exact same price as the one 18-200 VR. this is going over your budget though.

[Rooz]

geez...getting DEEEEPPPPP into 30d territory now mate. what the hell, blow all these bodgy cams off, load up the credit card and get the mighty d200. :D life weren;t meant to be easy. lol :D

[longroad]

Yes we are going waaay over budget here! :P

Are Sigma lenses just as good as the nikon ones?

Perhaps i should just go with the kit lens then until I am used to the camera..

decisions decisions :cool: :D

[coldrain]

I wont be using RAW much.. Im not really into Photoshop so I'm looking to get the best possible photos straight out of the camera.

I like the D80's extensive settings options too, seems to have an edge over the 400d on that front as well?
From dpreview:

D80:
• Six preset looks
• Sharpening: Auto, 6 levels
• Tone: Auto, 5 levels, Custom
• Color: 3 modes
• Saturation: Auto, 3 levels
• Hue: -9° to +9°

400D:
• Six preset picture styles
• Three user sets
• Sharpening: 8 levels
• Contrast: 9 levels
• Saturation: 9 levels
• Color tone: 9 levels
• B&W filter/tone: 5 of each

The 400D has the edge in image settings...

According to dpreview, the 400D delivers the more textured and detailed picture in JPEG at ISO 100. In RAW the difference is gone. This points to a better image processing of the 400D.

Also in their ISO 800 and 1600 samples the 400D does better.

Basically, both are very good 10mp cameras. The 400D is lighter and more compact, which for me is a pro. The D80 has a pentaprism view finder, giving a bit bigger and brighter view. That is a pro too.
For the image quality I would choose the 400D (and its mirror lock up that I use often). If you find it important how the camera feels (the grip), the D80 probably will win for you. Again, personally I find the image quality and size more important than how the grip feels.

[longroad]

Thanks coldrain. Just when was I 99% sure on the D80.. :P

I have a feeling I'll be happy with either camera.

Oh another issue I have with the 400D - no spot metering? I'm no pro but I do use spot metering quite a bit on my FZ20, I would have thought this would be a given on a DSLR?

[coldrain]

The XTi has a central 9% metering mode, which is close to spot metering.
I get by fine with that. I do think the image quality is more important to me than just how small a spot the camera can/will use to evaluate how to light a whole scene, and to me the 400D is the better camera because of the sensor and its results.

It is fine for you to choose a D80, I was just putting right some apparent misconceptions about the 400D. The D80 is a nice camera.

[swgod98]

I have a feeling I'll be happy with either camera.

You will. Just be sure to go test them out in person, because there are features discussed here that aren't very apparent until you actually try the cameras in hand.

And if you're at all concnerned about image quality, go do some searches on flickr and pbase to compare the XTi and D80.

[Rooz]

And if you're at all concnerned about image quality, go do some searches on flickr and pbase to compare the XTi and D80.

and as we all know bro, what you'll find then is a massive difference in the skill of the PHOTOGRAPHER as opposed to the capabilities of the body. all 3 cams are great. you can read reviews and see test results until the cows come home but all it will do is confuse the crap outta ya and none of the test results are conclusively pro one cam over the other no matter what any test junkie tells you.

longroad, check you're PM's. I work out your way so we may be able to meet up for a cuppa and you can check out the lens'.

[Hoplite]

Thanks coldrain. Just when was I 99% sure on the D80.. :P

I have a feeling I'll be happy with either camera.

Ya know, that's exactly what I need to tell myself. :o

I've been reading through this thread and I am in a similar situation. I'm driving myself and my wife crazy deciding between the D80 and 30D. I must have change my shopping cart 50 times at Adorama (http://www.adorama.com/) just between the D80 and 30D. :o

I'm getting back into photography after many years. I did film way back.

Still undecided....

The 2 carts I've been going back and forth on are as follows:
Canon

30D
70-200 f2.8L (f/4 to keep the cost down)
50 f1.8
bag, flash, CF card, filters, Targus battery grip. etc.


Nikon

D80
80-200 f/2.8D
50 f/1.8
bag, SD card, filters, MB-D80 battery grip, etc.


My needs may differ in that I need a camera/lens system that does well in low light, high ISO with fairly fast shutter speeds to capture action. I'll be shooting my daughters' gymnastics competitions and flash is not allowed. The meets are held indoors in convention centers, arenas and gymnasiums so lighting is decent to poor. Distances range from a few meters to 50+ meters. I'll be capturing the action on the events as well as candids between events.

So my question to anyone is which of these "systems" will be better suited for my needs? The Canon list with the 2.8 70-200 is a (US)$300+ more.

Thx

[Clyde]

I'm driving myself and my wife crazy deciding between the D80 and 30D.

My needs may differ in that I need a camera/lens system that does well in low light, high ISO with fairly fast shutter speeds to capture action. I'll be shooting my daughters' gymnastics competitions and flash is not allowed.

So my question to anyone is which of these "systems" will be better suited for my needs? The Canon list with the 2.8 70-200 is a (US)$300+ more.

Thx

The magic words are "low light, high ISO." Folks mostly agree that canon has the high ISO edge over nikon. Check out your typical sporting event, and note what brand the pros use.

Sadly, however, most folk seem to think that a 70-200 lens doesn't get you close enough. You are probably going to want a VERY expensive lens at some point. In the meantime, check out the cheaper 70-300 IS lens that is well thought of in terms of image quality, giving extra reach compared to the 70-200 Ls, at the cost of durability and focus speed.

You might want to re-evaluate your needs. The ultra-zooms give pretty good pictures at fractions of the cost of DSLR's with good zoom lenses. So, unless you are sure that you need every bit of DSLR high ISO quality, save the money.

Good luck,

Clyde

[swgod98]

I really don't think indoor action photos are going to come out with an F5.6 lens.

And I'd go with the 30D as well. The 5fps it provides is designed for action.

[longroad]

I've decided on what Im getting -

Nikon D80
AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF DX VR
18-135mm f/3-5.6G ED
AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

Im blowing the budget by about $400 but its going to be well worth it ;)

[coldrain]

Hoplite, I think that a 70-200 lens WILL get you close enough, of course depending on how big the distance will be.

The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG HSM may be a good choice too, it is also a very good 70-200 lens, with also very good build quality, and it has an HSM motor similar to USM, which means fast and silent focussing. It will save you a bit on the Canon option.

The 30D, being faster shot to shot and better in higher ISO settings (and not requiring $150 for a good RAW convertor, as it is standard) may be your best choice here.

Even though the EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM does not have a big max. aperture, its IS will help quite a bit anyway, in low light sports. So it might be a possibility, I can not try that out so I can only imagine it. You do not need superfast shutter times, and it might just cut it.

[Hoplite]

Hoplite, I think that a 70-200 lens WILL get you close enough, of course depending on how big the distance will be.

The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG HSM may be a good choice too, it is also a very good 70-200 lens, with also very good build quality, and it has an HSM motor similar to USM, which means fast and silent focussing. It will save you a bit on the Canon option.

The 30D, being faster shot to shot and better in higher ISO settings (and not requiring $150 for a good RAW convertor, as it is standard) may be your best choice here.

Even though the EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM does not have a big max. aperture, its IS will help quite a bit anyway, in low light sports. So it might be a possibility, I can not try that out so I can only imagine it. You do not need superfast shutter times, and it might just cut it.


Thanks for the quick reply everyone. :)

I was thinking of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 but read reviews and posts that said it was on the soft side and questioned its reliability. I know it is a viable option when I factor in cost but how accurate are the claims that I should stay away from 3rd party lens makers? I considered the EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM for the non-action candids but I think it may be too slow for the action stuff as swgod98 stated.



Sadly, however, most folk seem to think that a 70-200 lens doesn't get you close enough. You are probably going to want a VERY expensive lens at some point. In the meantime, check out the cheaper 70-300 IS lens that is well thought of in terms of image quality, giving extra reach compared to the 70-200 Ls, at the cost of durability and focus speed.

You might want to re-evaluate your needs. The ultra-zooms give pretty good pictures at fractions of the cost of DSLR's with good zoom lenses. So, unless you are sure that you need every bit of DSLR high ISO quality, save the money.

I've tried "super-zooms" like the Canon S3IS and wasn't pleased with the results. They were significantly better than my Canon a620 but still unusable for my use. I'm assuming that DSLR's perform noticeably better under similar conditions. As far as the focal length goes, 70-200 will have to suffice at this time. I cannot afford longer :( . But typically, distances will be in the 10-25m range. On occasion it will go up to 50m. I can't justify the $4000-5000+ for the big fast lenses for the few times I'd use it. If I were a pro, that would be different.



and as we all know bro, what you'll find then is a massive difference in the skill of the PHOTOGRAPHER as opposed to the capabilities of the body. all 3 cams are great. you can read reviews and see test results until the cows come home but all it will do is confuse the crap outta ya and none of the test results are conclusively pro one cam over the other no matter what any test junkie tells you.

Well put Rooz. But in my case I'd like to have the camera that will provide the best results within my intended use and dependent upon environmental factors such as available light and no flash allowed. The 30D and D80 probably perform similarly in the situation I'd be shooting in and I concede that I most likely may not be able to tell the difference after the shot, but just knowing that one is slightly better for my purpose may bother me :o . I've handled both and they both feel comfortable in my hands. Their respective UI's are logical and easy enough to navigate. I am leaning towards the D80 more for budget reasons but still considering the 30D for the vast majority of recommendations for low light, high ISO performance. Anyways, I'll be purchasing this weekend one of these fine systems. And I'm sure that I won't be disappointed either way so all this worry and stress over the better system will ultimately be a waste of energy. I also plan to do other types of photography than just sports. Landscapes, nature, architecture and portraiture all interest me.

On another note, I looked at your portfolio and was very impressed. Some of your photos really moved me. Your colors and composition are excellent!


And on a last note, I apologize to longroad if I have hijacked your thread in any way.

[Hoplite]

OK, maybe I should break it down this way...

Canon 30D w/ 70-200 f4L & 50 f1.8

or...

Nikon D80 w/ 80-200 f2.8D & 50 1.8

My above-mentioned intended use still applies. Would the faster Nikon lens offset the low-light/high-ISO performance advantage of the 30D? Hmmm....

The 2 combos above are approx. the same final price when I have to add in the tripod collar of the Canon lens which is not included :( .

Or maybe splurge on the 30D w/ 70-200 f2.8L? Expensive though....

[swgod98]

That's basically allowing you one lower ISO setting on the D80 to get an equivalent exposure. I'm sure the noise levels would be comparable at this point, possibly favoring the D80.

The F2.8 will give you better bokeh to isolate your subject. But, the F4 lens is probably lighter. And the 30D still has 5fps, the D80 3fps.

Obviously the 30D w/ an F2.8 lens would be ideal. What's an ideal setup worth to you?

[coldrain]

You do not need a collar for the 70-200 f4 L, it is not that heavy. That is why it is optional.

You can still get the 70-200 from Sigma, I do not know where you have read that it would be so unreliable.

The 30D is better than just one stop at higher ISOs though. The D80 filters noise a lot above ISO 400, losing detail. This is also why it seemingly is a lot better than the D200, which does not filter noise that much.
Here a noise comparison in the lab with the XTi (noisier than the 30D) and the D80, which shows the loss of detail from the in-camera noise reduction processing from the Nikon D80 (A100 has the same Sony CCD):
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp

Hard to find real light ISO comparisons that are more than noise on a grey card but...
here a comparison of the 30D and the D80:
http://tech.wg365.com/2006/2006-12-13/wg36520061213105240.shtml

From that comparison (try looking past the soft results from the crappy 17-85 IS USM, the softness is lens induced):

[Hoplite]

That's basically allowing you one lower ISO setting on the D80 to get an equivalent exposure. I'm sure the noise levels would be comparable at this point, possibly favoring the D80.

The F2.8 will give you better bokeh to isolate your subject. But, the F4 lens is probably lighter. And the 30D still has 5fps, the D80 3fps.

Obviously the 30D w/ an F2.8 lens would be ideal. What's an ideal setup worth to you?

Ideally I'd like the advantages that f2.8 brings with it - shorter DoF and faster shutter speeds. I do like the fact that the 70-200 f4L is half the weight of the 80-200 f2.8D but that's not really a breaking point for me. I suppose if I were nature shooting a lot I might complain about the weight of the 2.8.

The continuous shooting is an issue but I'm not quite sure how much yet. I may want an extra couple FPS after getting the D80. That's a tough call.

The 30D w/ 70-200 f2.8L would be great. But at $2300 for both, that leaves little room in my budget for much else. I may be able to push it to just over $2500(US) to get a bag, monopod, CF card and 50 f1.8. But no flash, extra batteries or battery grip. I was actually stretched for the $2300 budget. I suppose I could get stuff as funds free up, but I'm a right-know kinda guy. At least I don't have to upgrade my PC anytime soon. That should be powerful enough as I also to do video editing (NLE) also. So Photoshop will be a walk in the park.

But the future also holds more lenses, various filters, better tripods... what am I getting into!?!? :eek:

[swgod98]

The 30D is better than just one stop at higher ISOs though. The D80 filters noise a lot above ISO 400, losing detail.

It would be appropriate to tell the readers that these tests were done in jpg mode, which is not a strength of the D80. Anyone interested in the utmost image quality should be capturing in RAW mode, which evens out the high ISO results.

[Hoplite]

You do not need a collar for the 70-200 f4 L, it is not that heavy. That is why it is optional.

I was thinking of getting the collar more for holding it steady. You are righ that it is pretty light, relatively speaking. Tried on out at the store.



You can still get the 70-200 from Sigma, I do not know where you have read that it would be so unreliable.

Various discussion boards and review sites all question and have anecdotes regarding reliability. How much do I trust them, well, it does place doubt.


The 30D is better than just one stop at higher ISOs though. The D80 filters noise a lot above ISO 400, losing detail. This is also why it seemingly is a lot better than the D200, which does not filter noise that much.
Here a noise comparison in the lab with the XTi (noisier than the 30D) and the D80, which shows the loss of detail from the in-camera noise reduction processing from the Nikon D80 (A100 has the same Sony CCD):
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp

Hard to find real light ISO comparisons that are more than noise on a grey card but...
here a comparison of the 30D and the D80:
http://tech.wg365.com/2006/2006-12-13/wg36520061213105240.shtml

From that comparison (try looking past the soft results from the crappy 17-85 IS USM, the softness is lens induced):

I'd ask a couple things about that comparison. What level of NR is used in the D80? Is the D80 series done later? The lights are on. I suppose you don't have a comparison under more controlled environment? I'm not doubting the 30D'd low-light/high-ISO edge, just would like to know to what degree. The 30D is considered a "pro-sumer" level camera while the D80 is "entry-level" which explains the higher price.

[coldrain]

It would be appropriate to tell the readers that these tests were done in jpg mode, which is not a strength of the D80. Anyone interested in the utmost image quality should be capturing in RAW mode, which evens out the high ISO results.
Care to show/share RAW high ISO results evening out performance?
Last time I saw RAW high ISO comparison was with a D200, and that was not so pretty (for the D200).

[swgod98]

Care to show/share RAW high ISO results evening out performance?

I don't keep track of tests like you do. But, there are probably still posts on dpreview showing it. D80 vs. XTi images at high ISO and most people could not guess which was which (even some of the pro canon people were guessing wrong).

[Ray Schnoor]

The 30D may have the high ISO edge to pixel peepers as shown in CR's example and the following photos from Jeff's reviews of the 30D(http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/eos_30d-review/) and D80(http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d80-review/).

When the original 3200 ISO shots from CR's example and below are printed at 8x10, though, there is not really any difference. How often do you really crop 95% of the photo before printing, anyway? Yes, under a microscope, the 30D may have a slight advantage in noise. In the real world where you actually look at a photo, not so much.

Ray.

[Ray Schnoor]

I will agree that at least in my copy, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is a sharp, fast and accurate focusing lens.

Ray.

[Hoplite]

Hey Ray, which one of the full shots is the 30D and which is the D80? Or was that your point? The bottom one looks a bit over exposed.


OK, how about the 20D for $230 less? That would bring me back within my budget. Would the larger LCD screen, spot meter and larger buffer be a deal-breaker for you? If I got the 20D, I can for sure get the 70-200 f2.8L.

[Ray Schnoor]

Hey Ray, which one of the full shots is the 30D and which is the D80? Or was that your point? The bottom one looks a bit over exposed.


OK, how about the 20D for $230 less? That would bring me back within my budget. Would the larger LCD screen, spot meter and larger buffer be a deal-breaker for you? If I got the 20D, I can for sure get the 70-200 f2.8L.
Exactly. Those are the ISO 3200 shots from the 30D(top) and D80 resized to 640 pixels wide. There are those that will say reducing the photo will mask the noise. In my experience, the only thing that will bring out the noise differences in photos that are this close is to print them at 30"x40", or view it on your monitor at 100%, in which case you have to scroll quite a bit to actually see the entire photo. In real life where most people will not print larger than 8x10 or even 13"x19"(still not a noticeable difference), there just isn't as much a difference as some people would lead you to believe.

As to you thinking the bottom photo is over-exposed, I believe that is only because the default saturation levels of the D80 are not as high as the 30D. The default sharpness of the D80, at least according to Jeff, is a little on the soft side, too. These are all things that can be changed in the camera's menu to your own defaults.

I would personally choose the 30D over the 20D(older model) and probably even over the D80(mainly because of the 5 fps and I am not a fan of SD cards, though, not because of the, in my opinion, non-existant better photo quality).

Ray.

[Hoplite]

In real life where most people will not print larger than 8x10 or even 13"x19"(still not a noticeable difference), there just isn't as much a difference as some people would lead you to believe.

Most of the shots I'd use would be incorporated in the DVD's that I edit/author in a form of a slideshow. So resolution would not exceed 480x320 in SD or 1920x1080 HD. I would enlarge the better shots and give them to the other parents though for their personal use and would probably not print to 13x19. Maybe 11x17 max (printer max).



I would personally choose the 30D over the 20D(older model) and probably even over the D80(mainly because of the 5 fps and I am not a fan of SD cards, though, not because of the, in my opinion, non-existant better photo quality).

5 FPS would be nice. I was talking to a grandpa of one of the competing gymnasts last meet. He is a retired pro photographer using a FujiFilm S5Pro with the Nikon 80-200 f2.8D. He said he rarely shoots continuous. But then again, he has years of experience and probably good timing. What's my point? I don't really have one. Just wondering the value of +2 FPS for $250. Would I love it if I had it or would I miss it if I didn't have it?

What's your reasoning for choosing the 30D over the 20D and D80? Just curious and details please.

Thanks for your input.

[Ray Schnoor]

Just to clarify, any 3200 ISO shot will not look as good as a lower ISO shot when printed at 11x17, although they can be useable. I printed out CR's and Jeff's examples from below at 11x17, and although there are some differences in saturation and sharpness(correctable by changing the default settings of the camera), there is not a noticeable difference in noise levels.

In the saturation of Jeff's example, though, it seems that only the poster is less saturated in the Nikon photo. I am wondering if this is because it was taken at a slightly different angle. In CR's examples, the Nikon seemed to come out a little more saturated. Go figure, probably different default settings. I will say one thing, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart if I didn't know which was which.

As to my reasons for choosing the 30D over the 20D, it is a new and improved version of the 20D. I said that I would probably, not definitely, choose the 30D over the D80 and this is mainly for the reason that I do not agree with camera manufacturers practice to change memory format between cameras. I do not feel like changing to yet another format(SD) from what I currently use(CF). As to the other differences, they are not all that important to me. I have several 1 & 2 GB CF cards that I see no reason not to utilize.

Ray.

[Hoplite]

How about a 30D w/ 70-200 f4L vs. a D80 w/ 80-200 f/2.8D? Take memory card choice out of the equation though. Does the extra 2 FPS outweigh the 1 stop slower lens?

[Ray Schnoor]

Personally, I would also consider the 30D with the Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM lens, but if your 2 options are as listed, I would go for the D80 with the 80-200 f/2.8 lens.

Ray.

[coldrain]

How about a 30D w/ 70-200 f4L vs. a D80 w/ 80-200 f/2.8D? Take memory card choice out of the equation though. Does the extra 2 FPS outweigh the 1 stop slower lens?
The 30D's ate least one stop better noise behavior does make up for it, UNLESS you will need ISO 3200 and f2.8.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=102&sort=7&cat=37&page=2

Reading through all those user experiences I get the idea that the Sigma (old and newer versions) are very good lenses. I really wonder where you have read about this particular Sigma to be unreliable.

More reviews and opinions:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/mg0600-1.html

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/reviews/sigma70200ex.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_70200_28/index.htm

http://www.photographyreview.com/sf-1/pid-28245799/productpagecrx.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-70-200mm-F-2.8-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

Review of the new Macro version:

http://www.photodo.com/topic_18.html

All in all, I think it is a worthwhile lens to check out.

[Hoplite]

The 30D's ate least one stop better noise behavior does make up for it, UNLESS you will need ISO 3200 and f2.8.
.....

Reading through all those user experiences I get the idea that the Sigma (old and newer versions) are very good lenses. I really wonder where you have read about this particular Sigma to be unreliable.
.....

All in all, I think it is a worthwhile lens to check out.

I had many opportunities to talk to one of the lower level gymnast's mother who is making a go at pro photography. She has a 20D by the way. On average her shots are in Av=2.8 (70-200 f2.8L IS), ISO1600 and Tv=1/640. When lighting is better she can go to ISO800. She prints to 16x20, at least that's the largest one I've seen from her. So I'm hoping I won't be using ISO3200 at all.

As far as the Sigma reputation, I have heard and read from a few sources that Sigma is anywhere between slightly lower grade than Canon/Nikon to total "junk". I'll name 2 sources off the top of my head, Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm) and the owner of one of the camera shops in my area. I would still consider Sigma's 70-200 f2.8 DG APO Marco and 100-300 f4 APO, but that doubt is still there. And doubt is enough to place that decision in the gamble with my money arena. If I'm going to bet, I'd rather place my money on the better bet. Who knows, I still may get that Sigma. I was going to get the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 when I was looking at the Pentax K10D cuz Pentax's 80-200 f2.8ED was uber expensive ($2600 list?). Do you have the Sigma 70-200?

[coldrain]

So your opinion is based on a blanket statement by the weirdo Ken Rockwell.. I see.
Not a very reliable source of information.

And the crap you hear from camera stores is not even funny. Worse than car salesmen most of the time? Did you ask what he based that opinion on? The higher margin he would get with Nikon and/or Canon lenses?

Do take a bit of time reading the reviews and opinions I linked to from REAL photographers and REAL Sigma lens users.

Of course some Sigma lenses are not great. Same goes for some Nikon and some Canon lenses. But the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is not one of them.

[Prospero]

Sigma's lenses are not junk like Rockwell claims. Don't take Rockwell to seriously, he loves everything with a Nikon batch and hates everything else. I find that his reviews are generally of low quality.

It is true that Sigmas quality control has a bad reputation. It is said that the quality of different lens samples deviates more than that of different companies. If a sample is bad, though, you can always send it in and get an improved one back.

Personally, I would definitly chose the Sigma 70-200 over the Nikon 80-200. The Sigma focusses faster due to HSM focussing (which is great for sports), its optical quality is very good (as shown in Coldrain's reviews), and the closer focussing distance is also great.

There are some members on this board who have the lens, and the shots I have seen taken with this lens are great.

[Hoplite]

So your opinion is based on a blanket statement by the weirdo Ken Rockwell.. I see.
Not a very reliable source of information.

And the crap you hear from camera stores is not even funny. Worse than car salesmen most of the time? Did you ask what he based that opinion on? The higher margin he would get with Nikon and/or Canon lenses?

Do take a bit of time reading the reviews and opinions I linked to from REAL photographers and REAL Sigma lens users.

Of course some Sigma lenses are not great. Same goes for some Nikon and some Canon lenses. But the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is not one of them.

OK, so you're switching to "attack mode". Fine, I'll take the high road.

First off, the camera store owner is someone I know and trust. I've been going to him for my P&S's and a camcorder for a long time now. He has extensive knowledge of photography and camera equipment. He stated that from his experience in the business, that "Canon and Nikon are generally of higher quality than Sigma." He told me it was my decision to save a $200 on Canon 70-200 f2.8L and get the Sigma 70-200 f2.8EX but advised that in performance, the Canon was sharper @ 200 and a tad faster in focus. He called it a draw in everything else.

I'll be the first to admit, my knowledge in this field is limited, but I do know who to trust. I don't know Rockwell, you or the many internet Sigma owners so I have to take all thing into consideration. I asked questions in this forum to get opinions on products which all goes into the big stew of my decision-making process. Opinions are weighed and then I'll decide. If I go against anyone's opinion, it's nothing personal.

That Sigma is still on my list, just lower than it initially was. I may still get it. Also, If you are asking me to actually go out and find every negative comment about Sigma and this particular lens and post them here, forget it. I really don't have the time or energy. I've read/heard mostly good things and most of those reviews you linked about this lens but I've read/heard enough bad thing to be wary too. I've seen the shots taken with this Sigma and compared. All 3 (er, 4) are very close. I actually think the Canon f4L lens may be the best of the bunch optically. I appreciate your passion about the lens and Sigma though. You too Prospero. Thanks for your input.

[coldrain]

I have the EF 70-200 f4 L USM myself, see my signature. Part of the reason is weight, I do not shoot indoors sports or anything like that though. It is a nice lens, not tack sharp at f4, improves considerably at f4.5 already. The new EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM may well be the best 70-200 you can get, it does beat my 70-200 f4 L USM, both in overal sharpness and in CA.

You can buy what you want or need, I am just not agreeing with that the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 DG HSM Macro is a lens that is not reliable. Not something I came up with myself, but what is the consensus of testers and users.

Do take into consideration that this is a public board, and not just a private email exchange. That is why I am wondering out loud why the Sigma would be unreliable, since if it is not responded to anyone who reads your post might keep that in mind and then it becomes part of the many internet folklore tales as you often can find like "Canon is better for sports. period." or "Nikon is better in wide angle. period" or indeed "Sigma lenses are of low quality. period." or "Pentax lens quality lags what Nikon and Canon make" or "Nikon lenses are better than Canon lenses".
You can add to this list at will...

It was not meant as an attack, just meant to inform you (that is why I posted MANY links to real tests with real test data, as well as real photographers opinions and user opinions. Not my opinion) and others that some Sigma lenses are, and this one in particular is, a very good and interesting lens.
Of course the Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 (IS/No IS) and Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR (and Minolta 80-200 SSM) are very good themselves, the Sigma just comes at a very interesting price point.

[Hoplite]

...the Sigma just comes at a very interesting price point.

The reason why it still is a viable option for me. I still may get the 30D with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX. Any significant differences in the macro and non-macro versions other than the obvious (macro and price)?

Also,what is the warranty that Sigma offers on it?

[longroad]

Well I've made my purchase :D

D80 with 18-135mm
Nikon 70-300m VR

Almost got the Tokina 12-24 instead of the 70-300 but they were out of stock and I got the 70-300 much cheaper so it worked out well for me. Tested that lens in the shop and its amazing, cant wait to use it.
I'll be picking up the Tokina later on. Before I even mentioned that was my choice the man said its his fave wide angle for this camera (he has a D80). And his mark up on Tokina stuff is VERY low so he really gains nothing from recommending it.
Incidentally markups on Nikkor lenses are quite huge, he knocked around $200 off the price of that for me.

All in all Im very happy :)

[Honest Gaza]

Congratulations Longroad....now get your name down for CW's next course :)

[longroad]

What is CW's course?

[Honest Gaza]

What is CW's course?

That's it....go to the naughty corner :D :D :D

[longroad]

I was always a cheeky one, so I'll ask again...
What is CW's course? :p :D

[Honest Gaza]

Firstly, start up the slow but methodical beating of the jungle drums for background ambience.

Now lean forward as I tell the tale of the great CW in but a hushed voice.

CW is a man of great wisdom
CW is a photographer of world reknown
CW is a master of bokeh
(check out threads, particularly Wedding photography, by the man known as CW)

....need I go on ?

Apparently so......*** drum beat gets louder ***

If you are at all thinking about taking a course on how to better yourself in the world of photography, consider a course at Cumberland Community College....where the tutor is none other than the great CW :D

(I believe you live in the South West of Sydney....not far from me....and the drive is well worth it)

[longroad]

And would this particular college have a website or some sort of documentation where I may view specifics such as course details and cost? :)

[kombizz]

If I were you, I would go for the following cameras:
-Canon EOS 400D 10mp
-Canon EOS 5D 12mp, or
-Nikon D40X
I am sure if you buy those lenses you would like it would be on your budget.

[Honest Gaza]

And would this particular college have a website or some sort of documentation where I may view specifics such as course details and cost? :)

http://www.macquariecc.nsw.edu.au

select courses, then photography :)

[Honest Gaza]

If I were you, I would go for the following cameras:
-Canon EOS 400D 10mp
-Canon EOS 5D 12mp, or
-Nikon D40X
I am sure if you buy those lenses you would like it would be on your budget.

I think you'll find from his previous post that he has already made his purchase.

[tim11]

Congratulations Longroad.
How much over the $2000 budget, if any, that you end up paying? Sorry that I am unable to read every single post.
I might take to the DSLR route sooner than I thought and it's frightening to think of all the research I have to read; especially on lenses. :eek:

[longroad]

Hi Tim

I ended up spending $2600 with the 2 lenses and D80 body. I would have stayed well under $2000 if I didnt get the 70-300mm lens. So quite over budget but I just could not resist that nice big zoom lens :)

I chose not to buy from one of those cheaper places which have questionable warranties and went to Paxtons and got a nice deal there.

Feel free to PM me with any questions, I've done enough research myself over the past 2 weeks and I'd be glad to share it with you :)

I notice you have an FZ20 too... you're going to love a DSLR ;)