DSLR recommendations

A place to share and ask questions about outdoor photography.

Moderators: Kiskadinna, Greenhead Grappler

DSLR recommendations

Postby duckin-A » Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:40 am

Hi....Looking for recommendations on a DSLR camera. I have looked at Canon D 40 & 50 also if you could get 1 lens, which one?? don't need the most expensive camera but not near the bottom either!
thanks for your help!!
" I spent all my money on Liquor & Women,
and the rest I just wasted"!!!
User avatar
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:12 pm
Location: vermont

Remove Advertisements


Re: DSLR recommendations

Postby mailyard » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:16 pm

i am in vt and have a nikon d70 with lenses it is a great camera
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: vt

Re: DSLR recommendations

Postby hamernhonkers » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:11 pm

The camera bodies are not as important as the glass. Any of the cannon xxxd or xxd bodies are all good, you just need to decide what features you want. The xxd series tend to produce better pics at higher ISO and the newer ones offer faster frames per second with a larger body. The xxxd series produce near as good or as good IQ as the xxd bodies but have lower ISO. The most important thing is to get good glass. I have just started putting together my collection. I have a 18-55mm is, 55-250mm is and the 100-400L 4.5-5.6 is usm. I am going to try to add a 500 prime F/4 this summer for the long lower light shots. No reason not to start with either the 40 or 50D both are highly recommend camera bodies :thumbsup:

David wrote:
I have suspended the suspension on the suspended, allowing the suspended to post in a non-suspending manner.
User avatar
Posts: 3597
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:56 am

Re: DSLR recommendations

Postby REM1100 » Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:32 pm

I was a Long time Minolta film guy and went with the Sony A200 which comes with an ok 17-70mm 3f.5-5.6 lens.I had already an old Tamron 70-210 f3.5-4.5 lens and an old Minolta 28-85mm f3.5-f4.5 ( both lens were of heavy metal construction.
I tried out other Sony and Tamron and Sigma 70-300mm F4.5-f5.6-f6.3 lens and they were ok at the low end and everything jumped to f5.6 or f6.3 past 100mm focal length and were quite soft at the 260-300mm focal length..I finally latched onto an old
Minolta Big Beercan 75-300mm f4.5-f5.6 heavy metal construction with a feelable manual focus ring. I tried out a Tamron 100-400mm f5.6 extra big telescoping about 18" was on par from 100-360mm and fell to pieces at 400mm..I setttled on a Tamron 1.4x Teleconverter which also works on IF as the Sony has built in Image StabilizAtion and gave me the feeling of getting back 1-1.5 lost f-stops..I shoot the best with the teleconverter on program mode and selective manual focusing and spot metering to get a sharper pic than the Tammy 100-400mm. At this moment I can't afford Carl zeiss or Sony G..the A200 is slightly above entry level and I should have waited for the a350 with live view and more megs.
I shoot with a light monopod for those quick long shots and the pics are pretty good...alot of my shots are with the Tamron 70-210mm and some with the 75-300mm now.
The main reason I went with the Sony/Minolta camera as I already had the lens and the great flash to cut down my costs and I found out thaa I could pick up old film camera set-ups as they were selling dirt cheap because everyone shunned Minolta as it was a third runner that got bought out by Sony.

Buying a Canon would have been a problem because it did not have image stabilization and it was also on par with Sony in tests..but there was a price difference of $150 and I would have to start all over on new lens selection with IS and L lens are not cheap...nor is the G lens which is equivalent..
Canon has an immense selection of lens on e-bay which are nice and they are not cheap and at the same time there are a wack of used Canon bodies on the market..some canon lens may not be intererchangeable with certain bodies. Also using a Teleconvertor that multiplies the math past F5.6 renders the AF useless and you must go to manual focus.

Also pics shot Raw in a Great Photo Editor program can make alot of pics exceptional nowadays without going to L or G or EX glass

Note anytime one goes to fast glass the cost of clarity is high and in some instances is not night and day as one is led to believe
as certain camera bodies either makes have hit certain thresholds and things like CA, noise. shutter speed megapixels factors in.
A volkswagon beatle will never become a PORSHE.

I might pick up a primes like 35 or 50mm f1.7 or f2.8 for those indoor low light events.

If I manage to pick up a Sigma 50-500mm BIGMA..I will upgrade my camera body to fully wring out the performance of a distant shot..but my main concern is not long shots now as my job justifies going to a Tamron or Sigma 10-20mm for those super wide angle shots in low light which also costs mega bucks..

I am not knocking other camera makes as it so happens I choose Sony for the above reasons and don't want a rant on this topic.

The other day I had my hands on a Pentax which was quite good and also saw the Olympus two lens system that was going cheap.

Whatever you buy choose your lens carefully and try them out on a trial test period first with a reurn policy.
on the X in Saskatchewan
User avatar
Provincial Moderator
Posts: 1294
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Western Canada

Return to Outdoor Photography Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest