indecisive dslr newb in need of direction

[metaphile]

I've wanted a dslr since I discovered their existence. I have a few slr's and use them occasionally but due to parallyzing indecision, lack of funding and just an inability to take the leap I have yet to really make a complete switch to digital. I am finally at a place where i have a work project coming up which is going to provide bonus income if you will and I have decided that cash will officially be put toward a dslr....so now the momentous indecision comes. I'm wondering if you had it to do again, what route would you take? I want to slowly invest in a system I think. I'm planning to go either the canon or nikon route. I have two nikon lenses, but neither is particularly great, one came in a kit with my slr and the other was a telephoto lens for around 100 dollars. So I don't feel bound to the nikon brand necessarily.

Anyway, so it's not that money is no object, it's just that for once i'm not a starving college student and i have disposable income so i don't know what to do. For instance if I were going with Nikon I don't know if I should go with a significantly cheaper model and get like say the D40 or if instead I should just pony up the cash and go all out with a D200. Part of me feels like I should start basic and get the D40 and start investing in some really quality lenses, and if in a year or two I feel I have outgrown the D40 then I can upgrade then. Maybe I should invest in that lesser model to take the time to get a feel for using a dslr? Another part of me feels like I should just suck it up and get say a D200, just spend the cash and deal with it rather than wimping out because the D200 will grow with me. And who knows when I will be in a position to make an investment like this again? I've used SLR's as I've mentioned but my experience is certainly not professional, so I feel like a dslr could really be an excellent learning tool. Or I suppose I could consider a D80 and choose something more middle of the road. I worry that if I get something really top of the line like say a canon 5d I will possibly be intimidated by this super expensive piece of equipment and not learn to really properly use it. Does that make sense? I just wonder if I get a camera that's too "professional" or above my current abilities and knowledge that it won't be worth the money or the features it touts won't be put to good use.

All of the above can be applied to other brands equivalent models as well, again I'm not tied to Nikon. So anyway, if I may also post some additional questions, and feel free to comment on any or all.

-Any websites or books that can be recommended for learning the basics of post processing photos? i have photoshop already but have no idea how to use it really....i could really use a place to start for the basics. I feel like I've been sooo anti-digital for so long and avoided the digital dark room because I loathe overprocessed pics but I am still interested in the basics and cool techniques.
-for shooting raw what other investments should i plan to make in terms of software, external hard drives or sd cards?
-anything else? any wise tips to add for an indecisive newb above to venture forth? things you wish you knew then, or wish you had done differently?

Anyway, I guess that's all. I'm just feeling very ready to take the leap into digital photography and investing in a system, I'm feeling stuck right now with just my little point and shoot. Thanks in advance!

[Rooz]

you need to provide more info. what do you shoot, whats your final budget ? what sort of lens' are you looking for ? what sort of features are important to you etc. from the info you gave you could match that to a $500 d40 or a $2000 D300. its just too broad to be able to pinpoint a good system setup.

FWIW if you have already owned an slr then there's nothing intimidating about any dlsr imo. at the end of the day the key points are shutter speed, aperture and iso which all combine to create an exposure. all the other stuff about dslr is great to have but not intimidating in the slightest.

i made the leap from a canon eos film camera to dslr last year and was in an almost identical position as you are in now where i held off for ages thinking digital was too hard and film was better. now that i made the move i wonder why it took me so long. i could never go back to film except for a longing every now and then to process B&W prints at home which i always found magical or too see the vividness of velvia.

as for post processing, you can do as little or as much as you like. there is no golden rule. the closer you get to being right str8 out of the cam, the less you will need to do in PP. i found that learning from a book was useless for me. you can find online videos which are far more helpful or just practice and use good ol' trial and error.

[TheWengler]

you need to provide more info.

Kind of funny how he/she wrote a book but didn't answer any of the questions on the form. :p

I would recommend going with an entry level body and using the bulk of your money for quality lenses. As Rooz said, for more specific answers more specific info is needed. There's a form at the top of the "Which camera should i buy?" section that people usually fill out.

[fionndruinne]

In my opinion, A D40 would be a better way to grow into a D200 or D300 than getting a D200 to begin with. The D40 is just so simple and a great learning tool due to its menu system, and the smaller feature set, which will keep you from being overwhelmed by a cluttered array of features. And the sooner you can acquire high-quality glass, the better.

As far as post-processing, you may want to pick up Adobe Lightroom. It is a powerful editor, but without the huge gamut of gizmos that makes Photoshop such a beast to get into. It's very simply geared towards making your photos look as good as possible. All the necessities for editing are there.

[metaphile]

Kind of funny how he/she wrote a book but didn't answer any of the questions on the form. :p

Indecisive and long-winded :) Sorry, I just started typing and it became a rambling novel. Anyway, I genuinely feel like I'm very open and flexible to many options, so I will fill out the form and try to be as specific as possible, but the range is pretty large I feel like I want a pretty well rounded set-up.

Budget

* What budget have you allocated for buying this camera? Please be as specific as possible.

While I do know 500 to 2000 is a large range, it really is that big. Like I said, it's disposable income at this point and while there is a great difference there, I can swing either. I mean I suppose part of me is leaning toward the less costly body for the sake of more lenses and I have to imagine I will be constantly paranoid of dropping a 2000 dollar camera or having it stolen. So yeah, something too expensive may feel a bit like a liability at times, but really I can justify either price extreme within my budget.

Size

* What size camera are you looking for? Or does size not matter at all to you?
Size is no issue, I simply want something that feels solid in my hands. I don't like plasticy feeling cameras, just something that I would categorize as being built well.

Features

How many megapixels will suffice for you?
6+

* What optical zoom will you need? (None, Standard = 3x-4x, Ultrazoom = 10x-12x, Other - Specify)
Want to have flexibility with both wide and telephoto lenses.

* How important is “image quality” to you? (Rate using a scale of 1-10)
9

Do you care for manual controls?
yes, I definitely require this option

General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for?
Photography is a hobby, I will be using it for taking casual portraits and macro work. That being said I do still occasionally shoot outdoors or landscapes as well as action shots (but that's more from an overactive puppy:), not so much athletics). I do definitely need to be equipped for low light indoor situations.

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?
Yes, 8x10 and 11x14 but the likelihood of anything larger than that is pretty small.

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos?
yes

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos?
not so much, but occasionally

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate?
I'm leaning toward investing in a canon or nikon.

Are there particular models you already have in mind?
Not especially, other than those I've listed as reference points above.

(If applicable) Do you need any of the following special features? (Wide Angle, Image Stabilization, Weatherproof, Hotshoe, Rotating LCD)
I do plan to use wide angle, and would like image stabilization....can't think of anything else.

Thanks for your help everyone, while I feel very fortunate to be in a position where I can afford a wide range of cameras, it's also simultaneously infuriating because it makes deciding all that much more difficult.

[erichlund]

In my opinion, A D40 would be a better way to grow into a D200 or D300 than getting a D200 to begin with. The D40 is just so simple and a great learning tool due to its menu system, and the smaller feature set, which will keep you from being overwhelmed by a cluttered array of features. And the sooner you can acquire high-quality glass, the better.

As far as post-processing, you may want to pick up Adobe Lightroom. It is a powerful editor, but without the huge gamut of gizmos that makes Photoshop such a beast to get into. It's very simply geared towards making your photos look as good as possible. All the necessities for editing are there.

Here's a trick question for you. Do you know which camera Nikon first put the help menu system on the camera? The trick is you've already mentioned the camera, and it's not the D40.

[TheWengler]

I think you should be looking at the Nikon D40 (maybe the D80), the Canon XT/XTi and the Pentax K100D. To me the K100D has the most short term appeal, due to the in body IS but if you're looking to invest a lot of money into quality lenses then you should probably go with a Canon or Nikon. The problem with the D40 is it will only auto focus with Nikon AF-S lenses and Sigma HSM lenses. This is limiting but not a deal breaker. It's even worse if you want to use primes as you'll be forced to manual focus (dedicated macro lenses included). The XT/XTi body design isn't all that appealing but if that doesn't bother you then that's probably the way to go. Also for both Canon and Nikon you'll need to buy in lens IS which is more expensive.

For Macro a dedicated macro lens the Tamron 90mm Macro is popular (remember no auto focus on the D40). For a walk around lens the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 is also popular. There is a macro version. It's not a true macro lens but it might satisfy your craving. You can throw the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 in the mix too if you get a Canon (or the D80). Also a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 can be good for low light or a short portrait lens, but maybe not essential if you start with a fast zoom.

[fionndruinne]

Mentioned here on this topic, Eric? Surely not the D200?

Metaphile, with a budget like that, I'm thinking the D80 would be a great Nikon choice... it's maybe $400 more than the D40, but then you've got more lensing options. It's larger; some folks like their camera smaller, some larger, but no one can argue that the D80 is pleasing to hold and use.

And yes, the D80 has the menu help system (is that the one Eric?), so I'd imagine it would be almost as good to learn with as the D40 (I think the slimmer feature array helps, myself, but it shouldn't be too big of a thing).

[erichlund]

Yes, the D200 does, in fact, have the help menu system. It was not, however, the first (I stand corrected, even if I corrected myself). The help menu system on the D200 was derived from that on the D2X.

So, I don't actually know which was the first camera to have it, but it's been around longer than the D40, and the D200 does have context sensitive menu help.

The sad (or great, depending on your point of view) thing is, the D200 has so much stuff available through dedicated buttons, that I have a hard time navigating the menu system, because I almost never use it. I just use the dedicated button for what I want to do. Now, for some people, that may be more complex, because you have all those buttons to learn. But, I'm here to tell you that once you learn them, it's WAY easier than dealing with stuff buried in menus. I will take a dedicated button, over a menu item, any day of the week.

In case you may think that I'm coming from a background of only knowing the D200, my first dSLR was a D70. While a step up in complexity from the D40, it still had a lot of stuff buried in menus. When it was stolen in a burglary, and the D200 was announced, my first reaction to the D200 was that this was the perfect camera. It got me out of that stupid menu system. Of course, it's not really perfect, no camera is. But it's still so good that I'm not even considering the D300.

That's why I laugh (to myself) when I see that common statement about buying a D40 as your first dSLR rather than the more complex D200. Frankly, the D200 is easier to operate. The only reason I think someone should go with the D40 or D80 is they cannot afford the D200, or they want to shoot jpg. The D200 doesn't do jpg nearly as well as the newer cameras. It is a RAW machine, and you have to want to shoot RAW to use it well. But, if you can afford a D200 (or D300), you can afford CaptureNX, and CaptureNX makes RAW easy. ViewNX make RAW fast, and it's free.

So, my recommendation for anyone that wants one camera they can live with for years: Get a D200 or D300, and grow with it. You don't have to worry about outgrowing the camera, it's a fully mature system. The only reason you might outgrow the cameras is you need greater resolving power, and the only way you will get that in Nikon is to go FX.

[fionndruinne]

Hmm, that's odd that Nikon would target their highest-end products for the help system. One would think a D2x buyer would have a pretty good idea of what spot meter, ISO, aperture et cetera mean.:rolleyes:

I am somewhat in favor of learning on a less complex machine, myself, though. You didn't learn on a D200 yourself. My friend still hasn't figured out all his XTi can do; he blames in part the amount of "stuff" dumped into that camera. I guess for some folks the wide array of features can be a little paralyzing as far as learning goes. I don't know, myself.

Buttons, well, they're nice, but a trade-off, because that means either a larger camera to accommodate them, or worse ergonomics because there's less working space on your camera without hitting a button you didn't mean to. For a feature-rich D200, which is also rather large, I guess it's no problem. But I'll just say I'm very familiar with the menu system, and nothing takes me more than a couple of seconds to change in the field.

[Rooz]

its not the same help system.

[fionndruinne]

Ahh. I do believe the D80 has the same help system as the D40 though, correct? Which would make it the first, since it came out before the D40.

[Vich]

Ahh. I do believe the D80 has the same help system as the D40 though, correct? Which would make it the first, since it came out before the D40.
The DSLR manufacturers aren't making it any easier to decide are they? Very exciting time to purchase!

The Canon's are solid with amazing lenses but their recent releases have been incremental at best. Nikon's made a great showing lately. The in-camera IS on the other choices does wonders and they'll lend IS to fast primes - ideal for very low light stuff.

Not being a Nikon person, yet reading the forums plenty, I'd say the D200 is worth the extra $$. You wouldn't be overly disappointed with the others but I think the D200 will impress you to the point of leaving your SLRs at home.

[Rooz]

Ahh. I do believe the D80 has the same help system as the D40 though, correct? Which would make it the first, since it came out before the D40.

no, the d40's help is unique. there are the "?" answers on all those models but the d40 takes it a bit further. besides which the OP isn't new to slr's so not sure how much the help system is really relevant to her anyway.

[erichlund]

Hmm, that's odd that Nikon would target their highest-end products for the help system. One would think a D2x buyer would have a pretty good idea of what spot meter, ISO, aperture et cetera mean.:rolleyes:

I am somewhat in favor of learning on a less complex machine, myself, though. You didn't learn on a D200 yourself. My friend still hasn't figured out all his XTi can do; he blames in part the amount of "stuff" dumped into that camera. I guess for some folks the wide array of features can be a little paralyzing as far as learning goes. I don't know, myself.

Buttons, well, they're nice, but a trade-off, because that means either a larger camera to accommodate them, or worse ergonomics because there's less working space on your camera without hitting a button you didn't mean to. For a feature-rich D200, which is also rather large, I guess it's no problem. But I'll just say I'm very familiar with the menu system, and nothing takes me more than a couple of seconds to change in the field.


No, I learned on a Canon A-1 bought in 1980. That's a bit before the dSLR time frame. You might have noticed the OP has SLR's also, so she doesn't need a "starter" camera with training wheels. Ouch, did I say that out loud.

As far as your friend, he's figured out all he needs, because that's all he uses. As far as paralyzing, if you fear your camera, the camera is not the problem. Nothing on these cameras is rocket science. Developing skill with a camera is more about reading light than it is about operating the controls. You will learn to operate the controls you need, and ignore the ones that don't apply to your needs.

For instance, if you shoot in manual all the time, you don't need to know anything about the silly +/- button. You know, exposure compensation. You set exposure manually, so using EV would just hide information from yourself.

There's stuff I don't use on the D200. It's simply the fact that I have no use for it in my photography. For instance, the Qual button. I've used it once. I set RAW mode and haven't changed it since. I wish the button was programmable so I could use it for something else.

I use menus for stuff I need to set occasionally and then forget, like when I added an AI-S lens so it would meter with the D200.

As far as buttons rather than menus, can you change ISO without removing your eye from the viewfinder? With the D200, you can. That can be helpful if you are shooting a nervous critter, as it minimizes your movement. Just an example of how buttons can ACTUALLY be superior to menus in the field.

I understand that you want to defend what you use. But I've used cameras that are menu based (D70) and cameras that are button based. Buttons are better. Really. On your next vacation, consider renting a D200 for a week or so. I bet you fall in love. OK, maybe you don't like a big heavy camera (I do). But other than that, it's a dream to use compared to a menu based camera.

[DonSchap]

You could check out the SONY A700 and really impress the Canon/Nikon neophytes with your appreciation of quality improvements.

Not only is there a tremendous surplus of Minolta lenses out there that you can use quite well, but SONY's new offering is just about all you can ask for in a camera body. Is there room for improvement ... always ... but this is hot stuff and definitely worth a comparison look-see, BEFORE seriously getting into a camera system.

SONY starter set-up (a workin' photographer's rig):


30351
SONY α700 + 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM lens


Take my word for it, the above is a superior way to start off. But, if you're not sure, you can set up the SONY A700 with slightly cheaper choices of lenses. :D

Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 for just about $50
Minolta AF 28mm f/2.8 for around $100
Minolta AF 35-70mm f/4 MACRO for only $150 (a lightweight walk-around beauty)
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD for $160

That's a good "starter bag."

[erichlund]

Well, of course, we're still waiting for the full reviews, but the A700 is not too bad. Ugly, but I suppose one can overlook that. I notice you put up a picture with a huge lens that covers that neon orange ring Sony felt compelled to foist upon the world. We appreciate your consideration. :D

To my liking (and this is just opinion), for this camera to be more competitive, it would have a top LCD (I hate the idea of constantly powering the rear LCD, mine stays black most of the time as I don't chimp much). It would not have the scene modes. And, the reason we're waiting on the reviews is that we want to see that the camera has overcome some of the image issues that plague the A100. Finally, the orange ring has to go.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not even considering a switch. But these are the things that really bug me about the camera. Canon has scene modes on the 40D. Like Sony, they seem to treat the camera as a bridge between consumer and pro models, rather than Nikon's treatment as a category in itself, the enthusiast category. It's an attitude that translates into a lot of little things. Seemingly little niggling things, but when you start adding all those things up, they have an impact on the overall impression of the camera.

Of course, some of those things above can be overlooked. The only one that is really critical is the image quality. If Sony has brought it with outstanding image quality, then they may have something. I certainly like all the buttons, though I'm not used to the placements. That's just learning curve stuff. I do like the vertical front dial. I think that's better than Nikon's horizontal one. It fits better with the way the index finger sits on the camera. I wonder why Sony didn't make more use of buttons on the front, like Nikon does with the DOF preview (which is there, but sideways) and Func buttons. That's where the fingers are, so it makes sense to me, but maybe they have their reasons. It would possibly relieve a bit of the "clutter" on the back of the camera.

[fionndruinne]

Well, alright, I suppose to an SLR user there's little a D200 can throw at you that won't make sense. I just kind of stuck with the "newb" in the subject line.:)

And yeah, Eric, I programmed my customizable button for ISO, so I can change it with the click of a button. I'm not against buttons on a full-size DSLR, just don't like too many of 'em on a compact DSLR (the XTi, for example, feels a little too cluttered for my liking. But that's me). A couple more buttons on the D40 and I'd be a little miffed.

I don't doubt I'd love a D200 - I'm planning on a D300 upgrade. All I know is, I appreciated the simplicity of my camera to learn by. It allowed me to refine my skill by having fewer bells and whistles to distract me from the elements that make a photo. But to each his (or her) own.

[fractalgfx]

Camera's become absolute, lenses don't. I spent more on my first lens than on the camera itself. I spent about $2000 on a XTi/400d, a 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and a 430ex speedlight. In terms of features there are some things about the XTi that I hate, but in the picture quality is as good or better than you could expect if you pair a D200 with a cheap lens.

Whatever you choose, I highly recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 to go with it. It doesn't have image stabilization or ultrasonic focusing, but it the quality is just as good and it is half the price.

[metaphile]

Wow thanks for the lengthy responses everyone, it's nice to get input from several people. I feel like I still have no idea what I'm going to go with though, so I will probably be asking more questions in the near future. To clarify, yes I do have experience with two slr's, (nikon n65 and the pentax k1000) but I am by no means an expert or professional. I think I've just thought about making the switch to digital for so long that I'm a bit intimidated by the idea of making the leap to a camera with too many bells and whistles.

I went into best buy today to get something for my computer and decided to stop in the camera area and salivate er...get a feel for the cameras. One guy in the sales area apparently has been a professional photographer for over 30years and he is of the canon school so he gave the 40d recommendation, because he says he really can tell that the colors are more saturated on canon's. I don't know, I feel like everyone swears by one brand and becomes a lifer. It's just such an investment I want to be sure, but now I find myself eyeing the d40. It's hard to justify such a huge investment even if it is within my means right now just because this is such an expensive hobby. If it were a profession I would probably be more at ease in justifying the expense, but if only I had just taken up a more cost effective hobby :rolleyes:

[TheWengler]

I wouldn't trust anyone attempting to sell you something. A lot of people like the 40D but they're moving up from entry level DSLRs and already have a collection of good lenses. Just start simple. Get a quality entry level body and one quality lens to start. No need to spend all of your money now. Two weeks after you buy your camera you'll have a better idea of what you want/need and it would be nice to still have some budget left to fill those needs.

[Rooz]

what he is saying about the 40D is essentially correct. it is a new gen camera with 14bit processing so there will be more/ better information retention on digital files which should in theory give you better colours and a greater dynamic range.

you can go all out and get a brand spanking new Nikon D3 for around $5k if you want the bees knees. so the question isn't really about whether you CAN get a better camera, cos the answer is invariably YES. the question you need to ask yourself is do you NEED, (or can you afford),a better camera.

[metaphile]

If I were to go the canon route and pass on the 40d because it isn't what I NEED right now I don't know which other camera I would get. To be honest, I'm not crazy about the way the xti felt in my hands (I don't mean to be a hater since I know quite a few people use it on this forum) but it just didn't feel right. It felt small and plasticky? Again, I've been working with a heavy workhorse of an SLR from the 70's that's built like a tank, so admittedly I'm coming in with a bias. So my question is, are there any recommendations between the super entry level xti and the 40d that anyone would recommend? Something more middle of the road without making big sacrafices in what it can do? should I consider the 30d? Or does anyone know or expect something along the lines of what i described to be released by canon in the near future? Thanks in advance, sorry to keep posting follow up questions....I'm just feeling like with each bit of information I receive even more questions pop up. Thanks again!

[Rooz]

If I were to go the canon route and pass on the 40d because it isn't what I NEED right now I don't know which other camera I would get. To be honest, I'm not crazy about the way the xti felt in my hands (I don't mean to be a hater since I know quite a few people use it on this forum) but it just didn't feel right. It felt small and plasticky? Again, I've been working with a heavy workhorse of an SLR from the 70's that's built like a tank, so admittedly I'm coming in with a bias. So my question is, are there any recommendations between the super entry level xti and the 40d that anyone would recommend? Something more middle of the road without making big sacrafices in what it can do? should I consider the 30d? Or does anyone know or expect something along the lines of what i described to be released by canon in the near future? Thanks in advance, sorry to keep posting follow up questions....I'm just feeling like with each bit of information I receive even more questions pop up. Thanks again!

the 30d is an excellent camera and definately worth a close look. i almost bought one myself.

[lehew]

Given what you've said, I'd lean toward a mid-priced camera. If you spend $500 for a D40, you'll be able to take some great pictures, and you'll have money left over for all the extra stuff you will need. Good lenses will be the most expensive, and they will stay with you even if you upgrade your camera later. It's always nice to have a spare camera body, anyhow.

As you become more experienced, you will have a bunch of other camera-related expenses: camera bag, filters, memory cards, tripod, flash, and even trips to great places to take pictures. Similarly, you may also have computer-related expenses: disk drives for photo storage and backup, more memory, photo organization and editing software, photo printer, etc. If you decide to mount and frame your own prints... You get the picture, so to speak.

You probably will not need all of these things, but depending on what you photograph, you will probably decide you want at least some of them. If you spend almost all of your budget on a camera body, you may find you don't get the results you want or enjoy it as much for lack the "other stuff."

[erichlund]

Again, I've been working with a heavy workhorse of an SLR from the 70's that's built like a tank, so admittedly I'm coming in with a bias.

If you like that feel, then definitely go to a camera store and pick up a D200. Seriously. You won't want to put it down. It will just feel right. Of course, the new D300 will feel almost exactly the same. The D80 won't feel quite as solid, but it's got a large subset of the features for less money.

[DonSchap]

If you like that feel, then definitely go to a camera store and pick up a D200. Seriously. You won't want to put it down. It will just feel right. Of course, the new D300 will feel almost exactly the same. The D80 won't feel quite as solid, but it's got a large subset of the features for less money.

Hey, hasn't the Fujifilm S5 been reduced in price? It uses Nikkor lenses, too.

Still ... if you're not all that serious ... the SONY A100 and the cheaper, available excellent glass seems to be something worth investigating. Upgrading to the A700 will definitely be a fun day. BUT - If you have serious money, Canon and Nikon will definitely appreciate your patronage. Let the big bucks flow ... :D

[fractalgfx]

So my question is, are there any recommendations between the super entry level xti and the 40d that anyone would recommend? Something more middle of the road without making big sacrafices in what it can do?

I briefly considered the Pentax K10D, it is better made and has more features than my XTi, such as image stabilization and weather seals. In the end, I picked the XTi because of the high image quality and the multitude of lens options.

The one thing that really turns me off from Canon is the way that they are trying to distance there EF-S products from their pro products. My lens came with the price tag of an L lens, but it's build quality is inferior to less expenses L series models.

[Rooz]

Hey, hasn't the Fujifilm S5 been reduced in price? It uses Nikkor lenses, too.

no, not enuf anyway. i have been keeping an eye on it for home studio work. unless you are using it in a studio type environment or a very patient landscape setting i don;t think the s5 is a good option. it is quite possibly the most frustrating camera i have ever used.

[DonSchap]

no, not enuf anyway. i have been keeping an eye on it for home studio work. unless you are using it in a studio type environment or a very patient landscape setting i don;t think the s5 is a good option. it is quite possibly the most frustrating camera i have ever used.

Well ... make mine SONY and it will have to do.

I really did like the TAMRON AF 17-50mm f/2.8 on my EOS 20D. My biggest complaint was that I had no anti-shake to virtually extend that aperture for low-light shots. I, of course, sold my 17-50mm f/2.8 (Canon-mount) when I let the EOS 20D go. I missed it so much ... I went and got one for the SONY, today. I just wish I had done it last month.

I'm effectively finished with lens acquisition, having restored most of my focal lengths and low-light apertures back to my systems. As the holidays get closer ... the true indoor capability of these rigs will be tested.

Enjoy the season, folks :D I hope you all get what's on your Christmas list!


http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/bag31.gif

[fionndruinne]

Yes, the K10D is an excellent choice for those who want the "tanklike" feel and feature-range for less bucks.

I'm not going to switch to Pentax, but if I were a Pentaxian, that set of primes would be mighty nice.