Looking for DSLR (1 Viewer)

Ha! When I need longer focal lengths, I skip the expensive AF telephoto's and use my Nikon 82ED fieldscope with FSA-L1 dslr adapter for an FX/DX focal length of 1000/1500mm! Under $1500 too, far less than you would pay for a "puny" 600mm prime and 1.4x teleconverter. Yes, I have to manual focus but I can still shoot Aperture Priority and get full metering and exposure compensation with any Nikon dslr. Only downside is it can VERY hard to catch a bird in focus while in flight.

cheers,
Rick

Hedgeland said:

So if i want to upgrade a Nikon D60 i would also have to change my lenses.
This would be costly and put me off the nikon entry models.

Is it a similar scenario for entry level canons?

and Sonys for that matter?

cheers
H

Click to expand...

No, not at all, it's like this:

D60 and (older D40/D40x) omitted the lens autofocus-driving motor from the camera body, so can only autofocus with lenses that have a motor built in. The higher end cameras (D80/90, D200/300, D700/D3) all have an autofocus motor in the camera body and so can autofocus with any of the Nikon fit AF lenses.

If you fit a lens without an autofocus motor to a D60 it will work perfectly, but with no autofocus function.

Why Nikon and not Canon?
All this faffing about with in built AF motors and in lens AF motors.With any Canon DSLR including all entry models (1000d,450d) you can use even the oldest EF lenses.I have a 10 year old 35-80mm that works a treat on my 450d.Hell I even use an old film Sigma 500mm 7.2 prime that cost £100.OK it can only be used wide open but for birds and wildlife the AF is spot on and the depth of field is more than enough.
I dont want to turn this thread into a Nikon vs Canon debate but lets be honest buying a Canon and lenses for a Canon DSLR seems a lot more straight forward,especially for a beginner.

i have no dslr at mo and just shooting with a compact.

If i can use AF lens on better nikon camera bodies so only have the cost of upgrade from body only then this seems appropriate.

As for looking at better bodies - my budget cant affford it yet and best to get to grips with a lower DSLR and upgrade later once i have decent lenses.

Thank you for all your comments

Has anyone tried the sony btw??

Regards
H

Let us not forget about the Canon compatibility issues despite it's entry level non Af motor issues.

I'm afraid you're treading in polarised waters Hedgeland - there's few groups as passionate on the internet about their 'thing' as photographers are about camera brands...

The quality of SLRs has got to the stage where you can't go 'too' far wrong no matter what you buy, although for wildlife Canon and Nikon are the most common. Canon do seem to have a better selection of telephoto primes at the 'cheap' end if you think you might get that much into it. The main Nikon good cheap (for a prime!) prime lens is the 300mm f/4, and the 70-300mm VR is probably the best affordable zoom (and that would work on a D60 too).

Nikon removing the motor from the bottom end cameras is a bad idea as it adds confusion for new buyers - it must put off a lot of people. If I'd bought a D60 I'd not be able to autofocus with my older 300mm f/4 prime or my Tamron macro lens, which would be hard to accept. Of the three cameras in your first post my choice would probably be the 1000D, but if you can afford the 70-300VR lens then the D60 would make a very good platform for it.

Hedgeland,
Whichever camera you choose, there will be very little in it in terms of image quality. Best to look at it in terms of future upgrades.
As I understand it, with the Nikon, you need a lens with a built in motor - kind of restricting. The Sony option is also popular, but they don't really offer any 1/2 decent lenses above the 70-300 - you'll want to upgrade from it eventually. You could probably get a decent sigma for it though, like the 50-500.
With Canon, you don't really have any problems - buy what lens you like!
Even if you feel you are likely to go full frame - which is expensive and very unusual for amateur bird photographers, then EF-S lenses wont fit. But all the EF lenses - which include ones such as the 100-400 and 400 - will fit. If you get to the point where you are considering full frame, i'm pretty sure you will have a few EF lenses by then.

I agree with MikeFE - go for a cheaper canon and a cheapish sigma - mike gets superb results with his 500 f/7.2, and we have both used the sigma 135-400mm and been more than happy with it - you can get it for less than £200 2ndhand. With good technique, they'll be sharper and inheritly have more reach than a 70-300. Have a look at Mikes gallery for proof!

Gentoo, what are the compatibility issues?

Hedgeland what you eventually buy is of course your choice but you can get a DSLR for both landscapes and birding for less than £300.My local dealer (see link) sells a lot of S/H stuff and is where I get all my gear from.Their delivery times are also second to none.All the S/H stuff has a full warranty and to be honest I have never had a problem with any gear I have had from there.They currently have a Canon EOS 10d body with a Sigma 18-50mm lens (ideal for landscapes,portraits etc) for £194.Along with that you could get a brand new Tamron 70-300mm with a macro function (ideal for plants,insects etc) for £97 which is also a good starter lens for birds and is what I started with.Like I say this is just a suggestion and proof that you dont have to spend a fortune to get started.
Gentoo I would also like to know what the compatibilty issues are `cos I aint come across any yet.
http://www.waltersphotovideo.co.uk/index.php

For reviews on cameras/lenses etc try dpreview.com or stevesdigicams in a couple of months I will be seliing my sigma 135-400mm lens canon eos fit(just bought a new lens)to help me fund a new dslr.

Steve.

Gentoo said:

Let us not forget about the Canon compatibility issues despite it's entry level non Af motor issues.

Click to expand...

Er, what compatability issues?

Gentoo said:

Entry level Canons aren't like this. However if you have no Canon gear now, you will have to buy new lenses anyway. Another thing is, if you really get into it and can one day afford a full frame camera, if you are with Canon you will once again have to buy new lenses as their cropped sensor lenses don't work on their full frame cameras. Nikons do although it uses the center of the sensor so you lose about have your megapixels, the lens will work though.

Click to expand...

This really isn't much of an issue, it's true that the EF-S lenses are designed to be used one the crop bodies. If you use them on a full frame camera you'll get vingetting and have to crop off the edge of the image (which you're saying the happen in camera with Nikon). However there are only a small number of EF-S lenses, the vast majority of Canon lenses are EF and will work fine on any of the cameras. If you start out only buying EF lenses then it would never be an issue.

Thankyou for all your suggestions.

I will go in and see which one i like in a shop seeing as it looks as though i should be pretty fine with either canon o nikon.

Will also checkout second hand gear so if you have any other second hand outlets please let me know.

Thanks again and hopefully post some pics in future (although i am sure i will be a million miles away from a good pic - looking forward to the challenge though).

regard all
H

RJM said:

Ha! When I need longer focal lengths, I skip the expensive AF telephoto's and use my Nikon 82ED fieldscope with FSA-L1 dslr adapter for an FX/DX focal length of 1000/1500mm! Under $1500 too, far less than you would pay for a "puny" 600mm prime and 1.4x teleconverter. Yes, I have to manual focus but I can still shoot Aperture Priority and get full metering and exposure compensation with any Nikon dslr. Only downside is it can VERY hard to catch a bird in focus while in flight.

cheers,
Rick

Click to expand...

Good for you. However, I still wouldn't advice the OP to go that way. If he doesn't have a good scope already he would need to spend a lot of money on one to start with. Second: I have been in a lot of situations where a scope would have been too much to drag around (on a boat, in the forest, desert, mountains etc.), but my Rebel XT and EF100-400 got me the pictures (but a 200mm wouldn't). Third: I know people who been using both scope and longer lenses, according to them the former cannot compare to the latter with respect to IQ.
Finally, though 1500mm focal length may sound attractive, I'm not sure it always is. If I was to take a picture of a bird in the prairies or the desert on a warm summer's day at "ideal' distance with 1500mm, there would be so much atmospheric distortions between the scope and the bird that the result would be horrible. 400mm would force me to get closer (hopefully not so close that I would scare the bird away, but it is a danger) and thus reduce the distortions considerably. 200mm would force me to get so close that I most certainly would scare the bird away.

Thomas

Another quick question

Seem to be able to get a Canon 400D with lens for under £300.
Would this be better than the 1000d?
cheers
H

I was wondering if you could do that earlier on. The 400D is an excellent camera, probably less gimmicky than the 1000D (i.e no live view etc.), but I would imagine (though I do not KNOW) the image quality would be slightly better on the 400D. Also, the 1000D can only do 1fps when shooting RAW, whereas the 400D has a much healthier 3fps (frames per second), and has 9 AF points to the 1000D's 7.

mike from ebbw said:

Hedgeland what you eventually buy is of course your choice but you can get a DSLR for both landscapes and birding for less than £300.My local dealer (see link) sells a lot of S/H stuff and is where I get all my gear from.Their delivery times are also second to none.All the S/H stuff has a full warranty and to be honest I have never had a problem with any gear I have had from there.They currently have a Canon EOS 10d body with a Sigma 18-50mm lens (ideal for landscapes,portraits etc) for £194.Along with that you could get a brand new Tamron 70-300mm with a macro function (ideal for plants,insects etc) for £97 which is also a good starter lens for birds and is what I started with.Like I say this is just a suggestion and proof that you dont have to spend a fortune to get started.
Gentoo I would also like to know what the compatibilty issues are `cos I aint come across any yet.
http://www.waltersphotovideo.co.uk/index.php

Click to expand...

Only what I mentined about the full frame/crop sensor thing.

Hedgeland said:

Cheers for that - but does this mean that higher level Nikon bodies cant use AF lens?

Click to expand...

Gentoo's repsonse

"yes it does"

is wrong.

Nikon D40/60's require the lens to have an autofocus motor so that means it'll only autofocus with Nikon AF-s lens, Sigma HSM lenses (plus any lens with OS I believe) and some Tokina and Tamron lenses (I know Tamron are introducing more such lenses).

None of Nikon's other camera's have this requirement and will autofocus with any lens made in the past 10 years. Providing it is an autofocus lens!

Ok upgrading. This gets a bit more complex. Nikon makes two types of dSLR (as does Canon and Sony). Nikon calls them DX (APS-C sized sensor) and FX (Full Frame).

If you were to upgrade a d60 (a dx camera) to a d300 (a dx camera) all your lenses would work. if you were to upgrade to a d700 (an fx camera) then only the lenses that were FX lenses would work.

The 18-55 lens with the d60 is designated a dx/aps-c lens.

The APS-C sensor is smaller than Full Frame and kit lenses for dx/aps-c won't cover the sensor. This problem is the same for Sony and Canon as they too have cameras based around sensors that are of different sizes.

Postcardcv is sort of right you can elect to buy full frame lenses only but there aren't many cheapish FF lenses worth buying for an entry level APS-c camera. IF you are interested in landscapes this is an issue.

Given you can't buy a Full frame camera for under £1300 you won't be doing that for a while.

The auto-focus issue is not a big deal for most people since most lenses Nikon currently sells have an auto-focus motor. The exceptions are wide angle primes which I'd not expect someone getting a d60 to want and annoyingly the 80-400.

As to the whole Nikon v Canon debate its a bit daft both make good cameras and lenses.

There are strengths and weaknesses in both lineups.

And if anyone is interested I'd say Nikon has more variety in cheapish kit lens with Nikon 18-105 vr, 18-70 etc and Canon has nothing to match the 14-24. whereas Canon has the edge with IS/VR in their 300f4 and USM/AF-S in there 100-400.

I'm a Nikon user but whichever brand you buy you won't go far wrong.

You could make a good case for Sony, Pentax and Olympus if you wanted to no doubt.

You could consider buying second hand. Grays of Westminster give you a one year guarantee or 2nd hand good and sell mailorder. I imagine someone can tell you an equally reputable dealer for Canon.

What is your budget by the way? Its rather easy to buy something and then repent.

Also what are you buying for? are you interested in mostly photographing wildlife or would people and landscapes come into it?

pduxon said:

Postcardcv is sort of right you can elect to buy full frame lenses only but there aren't many cheapish FF lenses worth buying for an entry level APS-c camera. IF you are interested in landscapes this is an issue.

Click to expand...

Not really, Canon make 60+ lenses of these less than 10% are only useable on APS-C cameras. I agree that the only way to get an ultra wide angle lens is to buy an EF-S lens, but these ultra wides are very limiting and almost as specialised as long telephotos. Personally when taking landscape I use a mid-length lens (often a 70-200 f4) more than a wide angle.

pduxon said:

As to the whole Nikon v Canon debate its a bit daft both make good cameras and lenses.

There are strengths and weaknesses in both lineups.

Click to expand...

I totally agree - ignore the squabling about which is best, both are excellent - pick one and have fun using it.

postcardcv said:

Not really, Canon make 60+ lenses of these less than 10% are only useable on APS-C cameras. I agree that the only way to get an ultra wide angle lens is to buy an EF-S lens, but these ultra wides are very limiting and almost as specialised as long telephotos. Personally when taking landscape I use a mid-length lens (often a 70-200 f4) more than a wide angle.

Click to expand...

probably a similar sitch to Nikon I guess.

wide angles limiting? oh yeah they are. but there are times when you need them and they can be great fun as well. 70-200 are not much use if you're trying to photograph churches. There's always some form of wide angle in my bag.

Most of my photogprahy tend to be done in the range 10-30 or 70+.

but of course its horses for courses and the style of photography you do. In daylight I don't "need" f2.8 but in a dark church it can be handy.

pduxon said:

Gentoo's repsonse

What is your budget by the way? Its rather easy to buy something and then repent.

Also what are you buying for? are you interested in mostly photographing wildlife or would people and landscapes come into it?

Click to expand...

Budget is around £300 to £350 so low end and i mostly want it for general wildlife and in future with new lenses some macro and bird shots.

It would also have to have general use for the misses too.

cheers All
H