I am currently in the process of upgrading from my current camera the Sony DSC-H1. I am trying to decide between purchasing the Canon Rebel XTi or the Sony A100K. Im going to be using the camera for doing some sports photography namely figure skating. I've already been hired on to do all the photo's (group and single shots) for a local skating club and have decided I need more than my current camera to get the job done. So my question to you good folks is does anyone have an reccomendations oh why I should take one over the other. I would really like to hear from some people who have experience with either of these. Im thinking my whole budget for this planned purchase is around $1700CAD.
Help deciding on which Digital SLR to purchase.
- Thread starter magiic
- Start date
Main thing to look at with DSL's is you're buying into a lens system. Best approach is to look at what type of glass you're going to use and go from there. I'm using a Canon XT (similar, minus a few features) and like the system (except that Canon tends to be a bit pricey, thank god for 3rd party lenses). I thought it was easy to pick up, especially if you have any experience.
First thing I'd do is actually pick one up in a store and see how it feels, looks, handles, etc. The Digital Rebel line tends to be somewhat small, so if you have giant hands it can be a little uncomfortable depending on how you hold it.
Good thing on Canon over the others (save Nikon) is they've hung around the same lens mount for a while and you can find a ton of choices on the used market and in the 3rd party. Not sure on Sony, I honestly don't have much experience with them.
First thing I'd do is actually pick one up in a store and see how it feels, looks, handles, etc. The Digital Rebel line tends to be somewhat small, so if you have giant hands it can be a little uncomfortable depending on how you hold it.
Good thing on Canon over the others (save Nikon) is they've hung around the same lens mount for a while and you can find a ton of choices on the used market and in the 3rd party. Not sure on Sony, I honestly don't have much experience with them.
Knowing Sony the interoperobility with lenses probably sucks as they love proprietary stuff. I could be wrong though. I'm hoping I can get to somewhere to get a feel for one, I wish there were more camera stores around here as I dont know if Futureshop will have one for me to get a feel for. How much can expect to for a good lens to do the kind of stuff Im looking to do?
I've heard that the xti isn't much better than the xt, supposedly the autoclean on the lenses isn't that great, I've also read poor things of the 18-55 lens that is included if you get the combo. I'd go with a rebel xt body and a nicer lens, I think there is a upgraded combo lens coming out next month too.
I'll admit, I haven't used any of these ever, I've been researching the hell out of them though as I plan to surprise my wife for x-mas, and I'm 90% decided on the Nikon d40x, maybe a d80. I have read that the canon is better for sports photos.
I'll admit, I haven't used any of these ever, I've been researching the hell out of them though as I plan to surprise my wife for x-mas, and I'm 90% decided on the Nikon d40x, maybe a d80. I have read that the canon is better for sports photos.
oh yeah, I never considered the sony mainly due to the reputation of canon and nikon and the fact that most of their older lenses are compatible with new bodies (supposedly the nikon d40, d40x have compatibility issues with older lenses).
people here are friendly and helpful too
http://www.dcresource.com
best of luck, let us know what you decide on
people here are friendly and helpful too
http://www.dcresource.com
best of luck, let us know what you decide on
doubledown
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
I (my wife) have the Canon XT and she loves it. I know the pictures really depend on what lense you use though, so a good portion of your budget would go to that.
Honestly, you may want to go the XT route and put more cash towards a lense or two. You can also save some cash by buying JUST the body and pick out a good lens or two. Basically, the kit lense is adequate at best. My wife rarely uses it. We got a good non-zoom lense that Amazon had for a good price. Still waiting to get a new zoom one.
Honestly, you may want to go the XT route and put more cash towards a lense or two. You can also save some cash by buying JUST the body and pick out a good lens or two. Basically, the kit lense is adequate at best. My wife rarely uses it. We got a good non-zoom lense that Amazon had for a good price. Still waiting to get a new zoom one.
hollowfreak
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
I agree with buying the body and lens separately, maybe a higher mm or one with image stabilization. You have to shop for your specific needs. I personally haven't switched to digital yet but I am using the EOS line of lenses and I love them, I love my EOS Elan 7e too and I'm sticking with it until they release a digital version, there's nothing quite like eye-controlled focusing. But judging from what you're replacing an SLR system might be out of your price range and for that matter might not even be what you're expecting 'to get' out of it. They suck in low-light w/o flash, the higher the mm the lens the higher your shutter speed should be (usually 1:1 is ok ... ie 500mm:1/500+) be prepared to get a tripod. The auto focus although more precise usually isn't as forgiving as compact cameras. I'm not sure if you're maxing out your Sony , as far as zooming in (12x), but the specs say that's equivalent to a 432mm lens. You're most likely going to have to buy 2 lenses to compensate for the range that you're accustomed to. Like I said though I'm not sure where you were shooting most and where you want to be shooting in the future. Macro is a whole other ballgame ... and yes another lens.
I would not recommend the sony at the moment because it is their first DSLR and who knows how committed they are to dslrs. Being new also limits the number of lenses they have out. If you are considering cameras in that range, you might want to look into the Nikon D40/D40x.
You really can't go wrong with either the Canon or Nikons these days. They both have different views on ergonomics and I would recommend you go to a store and hold them and see which ones feels best for you. I myself prefer the Nikons on the consumer range of dslr's and shot with a D80.
As a few others recommended, I would buy the body and lens separately. With your budget you should be able to get one of those bodies and a nice mid-range zoom with a constant F 2.8 apreture.
You really can't go wrong with either the Canon or Nikons these days. They both have different views on ergonomics and I would recommend you go to a store and hold them and see which ones feels best for you. I myself prefer the Nikons on the consumer range of dslr's and shot with a D80.
As a few others recommended, I would buy the body and lens separately. With your budget you should be able to get one of those bodies and a nice mid-range zoom with a constant F 2.8 apreture.
Well Im hoping to go out and test drive cameras on wednesday. I'm putting my budget at around $2000 as I hope this figure skating thing can help pay for a good portion of it. I think I will likely go with the body only plan after everyone seems to think thats the way to go.
Ya I've thrown out the Sony idea. Everyone I know as well uses either Nikon or Canon. Although the majority of people I know who have them use Canon.
One thing I forgot to mention is the kind of lighting Im working in with skating. I know someone said DSLR's suck in low light. In the arena where I am taking the pics the lighting sucks. I can use a flash but the best I can probably do is a hot shoe flash I dont have the resources or money to get a bunch of flashes and have them wirelessly triggered when I take pictures with those umbrella things that photographers always use.
One thing I forgot to mention is the kind of lighting Im working in with skating. I know someone said DSLR's suck in low light. In the arena where I am taking the pics the lighting sucks. I can use a flash but the best I can probably do is a hot shoe flash I dont have the resources or money to get a bunch of flashes and have them wirelessly triggered when I take pictures with those umbrella things that photographers always use.
hollowfreak
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='magiic']Ya I've thrown out the Sony idea. Everyone I know as well uses either Nikon or Canon. Although the majority of people I know who have them use Canon.
One thing I forgot to mention is the kind of lighting Im working in with skating. I know someone said DSLR's suck in low light. In the arena where I am taking the pics the lighting sucks. I can use a flash but the best I can probably do is a hot shoe flash I dont have the resources or money to get a bunch of flashes and have them wirelessly triggered when I take pictures with those umbrella things that photographers always use.[/QUOTE]
plus you have to take into account the distance from you (actually the flash) to the subject as most flashes can't handle over 25' another alternative is to shoot in the higher ISO ranges (1600) which in turn will introduce more noise.
One thing I forgot to mention is the kind of lighting Im working in with skating. I know someone said DSLR's suck in low light. In the arena where I am taking the pics the lighting sucks. I can use a flash but the best I can probably do is a hot shoe flash I dont have the resources or money to get a bunch of flashes and have them wirelessly triggered when I take pictures with those umbrella things that photographers always use.[/QUOTE]
plus you have to take into account the distance from you (actually the flash) to the subject as most flashes can't handle over 25' another alternative is to shoot in the higher ISO ranges (1600) which in turn will introduce more noise.
Digital SLR's do NOT suck in low light. The image sensor on Digital SLR's tend to be many many times bigger than a point and shoot camera. This means you can turn up the ISO settings and have less noise in the pictures than a point and shoot camera would have.
The Nikon D40x is supposed to be pretty nice. I believe it is the newer version of the D40.
http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d40x/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/
The Nikon D40x is supposed to be pretty nice. I believe it is the newer version of the D40.
http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d40x/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/
[quote name='mkg12']Digital SLR's do NOT suck in low light. The image sensor on Digital SLR's tend to be many many times bigger than a point and shoot camera. This means you can turn up the ISO settings and have less noise in the pictures than a point and shoot camera would have.
The Nikon D40x is supposed to be pretty nice. I believe it is an newer version of the D40.[/quote]
thats what I thought but someone said they suck lol
anyways Im looking at this on a local used site similar to craigslist. I'd probably offer closer to $650-$700 as a body only XT at FS is currently 549.99 + 299.99 for the accessory kit (which is the bag batter and battery grip, which is probably not even worth half of that lol). I think I may drop him a line and see if he would take $650. Is buying a used camera a bad idea?
Linkage HEre
The Nikon D40x is supposed to be pretty nice. I believe it is an newer version of the D40.[/quote]
thats what I thought but someone said they suck lol
anyways Im looking at this on a local used site similar to craigslist. I'd probably offer closer to $650-$700 as a body only XT at FS is currently 549.99 + 299.99 for the accessory kit (which is the bag batter and battery grip, which is probably not even worth half of that lol). I think I may drop him a line and see if he would take $650. Is buying a used camera a bad idea?
Linkage HEre
crunchb3rry
CAGiversary!
Go with the Rebel XTi.
A regular Canon Digital ELPH could get the job done. It might not look like it, but those things take some damn pretty pictures. You'd just have to worry about being laughed at for covering an event with a camera that can damn near fit in an Altoids tin.
A regular Canon Digital ELPH could get the job done. It might not look like it, but those things take some damn pretty pictures. You'd just have to worry about being laughed at for covering an event with a camera that can damn near fit in an Altoids tin.
hollowfreak
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='mkg12']The image sensor on Digital SLR's tend to be many many times bigger than a point and shoot camera.[/QUOTE]
Yes the image sensor is bigger but what you're failing to see is the distance the light has to travel through the SLR's lens coupled with the amount of glass it has to go through.
[quote name='mkg12']This means you can turn up the ISO settings and have less noise in the pictures than a point and shoot camera would have.[/QUOTE]
Yes less noise than a point and shoot ... but still noise none the less which is basically "digital grain" which makes an inferior print.
Yes the image sensor is bigger but what you're failing to see is the distance the light has to travel through the SLR's lens coupled with the amount of glass it has to go through.
[quote name='mkg12']This means you can turn up the ISO settings and have less noise in the pictures than a point and shoot camera would have.[/QUOTE]
Yes less noise than a point and shoot ... but still noise none the less which is basically "digital grain" which makes an inferior print.
drawingboard
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 20 (100%)
I recommend the Canon Digital XTI 10.1 MP. I'd also invest in a cheap UV filter to protect your lens ($7-20). beachcamera.com had some good deals on them. Can't help you with the CAD part though.
joeLTron
CAG Veteran
Not to thread jack...but I'm selling my 8 month old Digital Rebel XT w/ the kit 18-55mm lens for the cheapness...also optional Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. I just ordered a D80 so I'm not going to be needing this anymore...if you want sample pictures...just pm.
Oh, also I'd go with the XTi if you're stuck choosing between the two.
Oh, also I'd go with the XTi if you're stuck choosing between the two.
[quote name='hollowfreak']Yes the image sensor is bigger but what you're failing to see is the distance the light has to travel through the SLR's lens coupled with the amount of glass it has to go through.
Yes less noise than a point and shoot ... but still noise none the less which is basically "digital grain" which makes an inferior print.[/QUOTE]
Digital SLR's are better for low light conditions, no question, compared to point and shoot cameras, correct? Maybe I have it wrong. There is more glass yes, but the lens is much bigger so it is able to gather more light.
So what is your solution to noise? I guess he can keep it at a lower setting. I mean all digital cameras will have noise if you turn up the ISO. He can play around with other settings. Low light is low light though.
Yes less noise than a point and shoot ... but still noise none the less which is basically "digital grain" which makes an inferior print.[/QUOTE]
Digital SLR's are better for low light conditions, no question, compared to point and shoot cameras, correct? Maybe I have it wrong. There is more glass yes, but the lens is much bigger so it is able to gather more light.
So what is your solution to noise? I guess he can keep it at a lower setting. I mean all digital cameras will have noise if you turn up the ISO. He can play around with other settings. Low light is low light though.
ok so just a last thing as Im going out today now to look and possibly purchase a camera. First off am I better buying it at an actual camera store or is Futureshop going to be better or does it just not matter (for those of you that don't know futureshop is just a big box home electronic store akin to Best Buy or Circuit City, Best Buy actually owns Futureshop). Lastly just to make sure is it indeed not worth the extra $100 for the included kit lens that can come with the XTi? Should I just grab the body and then work on finding a lens for it.
hollowfreak
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='mkg12']Digital SLR's are better for low light conditions, no question, compared to point and shoot cameras, correct? Maybe I have it wrong. There is more glass yes, but the lens is much bigger so it is able to gather more light.[/QUOTE]
If we're just talking about camera (lens) vs light then no. Pound for pound compacts handle light better, the lens is smaller, closer to the plane of capture, they get a better depth of field but all of this comes at a price and that's usually image quality but with lower resolutions it might not even matter. Judging from the specs of the cyber-shot the lens at it's furthest point is 72mm from the sensor but it's equivalent in 35mm format is 432mm, that's 6x the distance and that's just the length. The diameter of the lens goes up as well. Just for the telephoto aspect of it you're looking at a lens that's roughly 13.75" in length and 6.5" in diameter that weighs close to 12lbs. So you have it right the lens is MUCH bigger and much more expensive
[quote name='mkg12']So what is your solution to noise? I guess he can keep it at a lower setting. I mean all digital cameras will have noise if you turn up the ISO. He can play around with other settings. Low light is low light though.[/QUOTE]
You're right, there's not much you can do, light is light. You have to know how to approach each type differently. What I would suggest is taking a course in photography, especially if you're going to be dealing with DSLRs. You need to know how to deal with it in a manual sense, trust me the automatic settings are never your friend. I would even suggest taking a film based course (SLR) if you can't find a digital based one that deals specifically with DSLRs. Film is where it started and all the rules of lighting and metering still apply. I'm not saying you can't just "point and click" with a DSLR but you'll be much happier if you know what you're doing.
If we're just talking about camera (lens) vs light then no. Pound for pound compacts handle light better, the lens is smaller, closer to the plane of capture, they get a better depth of field but all of this comes at a price and that's usually image quality but with lower resolutions it might not even matter. Judging from the specs of the cyber-shot the lens at it's furthest point is 72mm from the sensor but it's equivalent in 35mm format is 432mm, that's 6x the distance and that's just the length. The diameter of the lens goes up as well. Just for the telephoto aspect of it you're looking at a lens that's roughly 13.75" in length and 6.5" in diameter that weighs close to 12lbs. So you have it right the lens is MUCH bigger and much more expensive
[quote name='mkg12']So what is your solution to noise? I guess he can keep it at a lower setting. I mean all digital cameras will have noise if you turn up the ISO. He can play around with other settings. Low light is low light though.[/QUOTE]
You're right, there's not much you can do, light is light. You have to know how to approach each type differently. What I would suggest is taking a course in photography, especially if you're going to be dealing with DSLRs. You need to know how to deal with it in a manual sense, trust me the automatic settings are never your friend. I would even suggest taking a film based course (SLR) if you can't find a digital based one that deals specifically with DSLRs. Film is where it started and all the rules of lighting and metering still apply. I'm not saying you can't just "point and click" with a DSLR but you'll be much happier if you know what you're doing.
Fortunately I mostly use manual settings with my current camera but Im definately looking to learn deeper into with the new camera.
@Milkyman by skating I meant figure skating lol
EDIT: just looked at the last link, so what you are saying is it will cost me about $7000 to buy a lens with zoom comparable to my current camera?
@Milkyman by skating I meant figure skating lol
EDIT: just looked at the last link, so what you are saying is it will cost me about $7000 to buy a lens with zoom comparable to my current camera?
oh, shit... hahahaha sorry
in that case canon all the way!
if you want decently sharp photos for indoor sports photography you'll have to spend money on a telephoto lens with a maximum aperture of 2.8 or better. You'll probably only need to spend like a thousand bucks or so on a lens. it's an expensive hobby
in that case canon all the way!
if you want decently sharp photos for indoor sports photography you'll have to spend money on a telephoto lens with a maximum aperture of 2.8 or better. You'll probably only need to spend like a thousand bucks or so on a lens. it's an expensive hobby
hollowfreak
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='magiic']Fortunately I mostly use manual settings with my current camera but Im definately looking to learn deeper into with the new camera.
@Milkyman by skating I meant figure skating lol
EDIT: just looked at the last link, so what you are saying is it will cost me about $7000 to buy a lens with zoom comparable to my current camera?[/QUOTE]
comparable? hardly :lol: No that was just an example of a prime lens with a similar maximum aperture. But that aside you do get what you pay for. Canon has a few in the DO series but like I said I'm still using film so I have no experience with them. Here's a few Canon lenses best to worst, I even threw in a DO, and as you can see the still don't sport maximum apertures better than 5.6 at full zoom.
Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (Image Stabilizer) USM Autofocus Lens
Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens
Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens
Zoom Telephoto EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Autofocus Lens
@Milkyman by skating I meant figure skating lol
EDIT: just looked at the last link, so what you are saying is it will cost me about $7000 to buy a lens with zoom comparable to my current camera?[/QUOTE]
comparable? hardly :lol: No that was just an example of a prime lens with a similar maximum aperture. But that aside you do get what you pay for. Canon has a few in the DO series but like I said I'm still using film so I have no experience with them. Here's a few Canon lenses best to worst, I even threw in a DO, and as you can see the still don't sport maximum apertures better than 5.6 at full zoom.
Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (Image Stabilizer) USM Autofocus Lens
Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens
Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens
Zoom Telephoto EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Autofocus Lens
csidegamer
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 159 (100%)
I have the XT. Only difference between XT and XTi is:
XTi has autoclean, XT is manual
XTi is 10 mp, XT is 8. Not a huge difference.
The stock lense is ok for most photos. Zoom is not great but again ok.
I would get the XT, and put the $100 or so you save into a decent zoom lense. (Which I am still looking for myself
)
I've had my XT for just over 15 months, and have taken about 7000 photos. Never had the battery go dead on me. Took some time to learn the features and I am sure I am not using 1/2 of what the camera offers. But my wife can run it and get decent pics out of it.
FWIW, I bought mine off Newegg.com, as they had the combo $100 cheaper than any B&M store.
XTi has autoclean, XT is manual
XTi is 10 mp, XT is 8. Not a huge difference.
The stock lense is ok for most photos. Zoom is not great but again ok.
I would get the XT, and put the $100 or so you save into a decent zoom lense. (Which I am still looking for myself
) I've had my XT for just over 15 months, and have taken about 7000 photos. Never had the battery go dead on me. Took some time to learn the features and I am sure I am not using 1/2 of what the camera offers. But my wife can run it and get decent pics out of it.
FWIW, I bought mine off Newegg.com, as they had the combo $100 cheaper than any B&M store.
[quote name='magiic']Just a little update. I've decided on the XTi and I am loving it
I am hoping to win this auction for this lens
also does anyone have any experience with mirror reflex lenes? My friend keeps talking about them like they are the reincarnation of jesus.[/QUOTE]
If you're talking about one of those telephoto lenses with the mirror, I've never used one myself but from what I understand they're low cost for extreme zooms, but also low quality. Not sure what's good about them except that they're cheap.
I am hoping to win this auction for this lens
also does anyone have any experience with mirror reflex lenes? My friend keeps talking about them like they are the reincarnation of jesus.[/QUOTE]
If you're talking about one of those telephoto lenses with the mirror, I've never used one myself but from what I understand they're low cost for extreme zooms, but also low quality. Not sure what's good about them except that they're cheap.
hollowfreak
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='magiic']Just a little update. I've decided on the XTi and I am loving it
I am hoping to win this auction for this lens
also does anyone have any experience with mirror reflex lenes? My friend keeps talking about them like they are the reincarnation of jesus.[/QUOTE]
They're cheaper, lighter, shorter and they have poor overall image quality, are prone to "doughnut" bokeh and are usually manual focus. I have this one and I can't complain about it too much. It does what it's supposed to and I know it'll never take as sharp a picture as any of my Canon EF lenses.
I am hoping to win this auction for this lens
also does anyone have any experience with mirror reflex lenes? My friend keeps talking about them like they are the reincarnation of jesus.[/QUOTE]
They're cheaper, lighter, shorter and they have poor overall image quality, are prone to "doughnut" bokeh and are usually manual focus. I have this one and I can't complain about it too much. It does what it's supposed to and I know it'll never take as sharp a picture as any of my Canon EF lenses.
bread's done