# Camera Input... PLEASE



## lifetime hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Well it's Finally my time to make the big purchase and buy a nice camera....!!!! *()* *()* 

looking at the Canon Digital Rebel XTi 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens (Black) and also the EF 55-200mm lens..

My main reason for this Camera is action shots (have boys in Baseball! need a camera that will take a picture of what I am looking at... not a delay so you never know what your going to capture!) :mrgreen: and also would love to start taking some wildlife pictures (that u don't have to point at the little brown dots and say.. those are Elk!) 
Planning on making this purchase in the next week or two, so we can have it for the Baseball tournament in Arizona the first week in March.

Anyone have this Camera or any imput on it... please share!!! thanks.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Canon and Nikon both make great stuff and I like the lens selections you've listed here. These days it's actually better to pick the lenses you want, and just buy a body that will use them. I think that Nikons get out of your way a little better (meaning they don't force you into menus as much to make basic adjustments). They have also just announced the D60, which IMO tops the XTi in several respects like image processing and highlight rendition.

One thing to consider: While the 18-55 and 55-200 covers a great range for general photography, I personally find it a pain to carry 2 lenses and switch back and forth a lot. If you go with a Nikon (D40, D40x, D60, D80 etc) you can opt for a kit with the 18-200 image stabilized lens. This is the best all-around lens in photography today, Canon wishes they had one and other companies like Sigma have tried to duplicate it with poor results. I use that lens for 90% of my photography, switching only if I need a long telephoto.

On the Canon side, for wildlife photography, I think the 100-400 IS USM lens beats the Nikon 80-400mm VR. It's probably the best long zoom that is reasonably portable right now.

Nikon also offers an 18-55 and an image stabilized 55-200 in seperate lenses for less money. If it was me, having a single lens that covers the 18-200 range would be the selling point.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Just a question, why Canon? Have looked at all of the options? Canon will cost you more money down the road for lenses. Something to consider.


----------



## lifetime hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

this is my first "nice" camera and don't have a lot of money right now, found this combo set at Costco for under $840. camera, both lenses and memory card, so with limited knowledge and funds.. this seems like a good "first" camera, but like I said, the main purpose for this camera is for taking pictures of my boys playing baseball... so when my son Pitches a pitch, I can capture him in the motion! because trying to capture it with a point n shoot.. is nearly impossible! :mrgreen:


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

That's the same price range you'll find for a Nikon D40 kit, check reputable online dealers like http://www.adorama.com, http://www.beachcamera.com, http://www.bhphotovideo.com, etc. This can save you sales tax, adorama ships many items for free also. I buy all my gear through those sites and have been extremely satisifed. They will have the Canon you are looking at also. Costco's bundles are usually good prices so if you like the kit go for it. I think the D40x is a better body than the XTi, and I think the Nikon D60 (which is just now becoming available) is better than the new Canon XSi.

It's splitting hairs though, both companies make excellent gear and have fantastic lenses available. Canons frustrate me with how often they drive you into multi-step electronic menus to access the settings I use every time I take pictures. I hate the Canon LCDs, even the ones on their $5000 Canon 5D is piece of garbage with a strong green tint. Nikon's LCDs are bigger, brighter, higher resolution, and have accurate color. The photos that come out of the Canons are great, just like the Nikons.


----------



## lifetime hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks threshershark for the info 

so my next question.. mega pixals...... 6.1 or 10.1... LOL


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

How big you printing? Do you feel the need to crop the hell out of pictures? A good 3 mp will print up to 8x10 so with a 6mp you could crop half the picture away and still get a decent 8x10. However there are 2 catches the first was I said good. That means you need sharp optics a low noise sensor and the ability to shoot a fine jpg (raw would be better). The second is that what is the cost difference between 6 and 10 mp 400 and 550 (comparing a Nikon d40 and d40x with the same kit lens) So are you willing to pay the extra 150 for higher resolution? Also understand that getting the higher resolution camera has some trade offs other than cost for example the Nikon d40 has a faster sync speed than the d40x also has a lower noise sensor (better pictures at high ISO). I just picked the d40 and d40x because I own a d40 and the two cameras are pretty much identical except one is a 6 mp and the other is a 10 mp. So you really have to compare camera to camera and ask yourself what you need.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

D40: 6.1, D40x: 10.1 and guess what? It doesn't matter. In the early days of digital photography when images were 1, 2, 3 megapixels it was a really big deal because the image quality was so much lower than film.

SLR sensors are large enough, and the pixels are of such high quality that once 6 MP was reached the issue became largely one of trying to sell new cameras to people who thought bigger must be better.

A 6MP SLR image will print to 16x20 with very good sharpness. I can't tell the difference between 6 MP and 10 MP shots until I crop them way, way down and magnify the image to the point where an equivalent print would be about 30" x 40". Most people rarely print larger than 8x10, those who do rarely print larger than 16x20. At those sizes there is a meaningless difference.

MP does start to matter if you increase the sensor size, like with the new full frame Canon 5D or Nikon D3, because you get a bigger sensor size and a meaningful increase in quality. It also may matter to you if cropping is something you often do. Pictures of small birds and other such subjects are often cropped way down, and resolution makes a difference there.

Here's an example:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t181/threshershrk/Nikon/Pea****1.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t181/threshershrk/Pea****7_1.jpg

Can you tell which came from a 6 MP sensor and which came from a 10?


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

Not to hijack this thread but what are you shooting thresher? What kind of lens? you must have a huge aperture because those pea**** pics have a really short depth of field and unless you were really close that would be hard to do with anything other than a pro lens?


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

The top photo was taken with a Nikon D70, using the same 6MP sensor that is in the current D40. It was taken with a consumer-grade Nikon 70-300mm f/3.5 to 5.6 lens that costs a couple hundred bucks brand new, at 300mm wide open at f/5.6.

The second photo was taken with a Nikon D200, and a Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5 to 5.6 lens at 270mm and f/5.3. 

One was shot with a $350 (used) camera and $200 lens, the other with a $1500 camera and $1600 lens. I can't see a difference until I magnify them to gigantic sizes. Keep in mind that these are both about 600x400 and reduced in quality for the web! The originals would both make equally good 16x20 prints.


----------



## lifetime hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Think we made our choice!!! thanks so much for everyone's input it helped alot!!
we found a great deal at Costco (that ends on Saturday.)

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.as ... en-US&s=1#
$649.99 After $100 Off
Nikon D40 6.1MP 2.5"
18-55mm, 55-200mm VR Zoom With Image Stabilization
VR Assures Dramatically Sharper Images, Bonus 2G SD Card
2.5 f/s & Advanced 3-Area AF

think this will be a great investment and hope to be getting a lot of great pictures!


----------



## James (Oct 7, 2007)

I was in the same dilema a while back. I considered the options and the prices, and the features and ended up buying a Sony DSLR. Sony has merged with Minolta and all the Minolta lenses fit the Sony. Sony also has image stabilization built into the camera body, so you can use less expensive lenses and still have image stabilization. 

The sensor in the Sony is the same as used in the Nikon D 200, yet the camera costs much less. You may want to take a peak at the Sony before you decide. 

Also google the models you are interested in and read the reviews. 

My camera is the Sony DSLR A100. A newer model is the Sony Alpha A700.

I have had a blast with the Sony. For the money it is a great camera. it has a quick shutter too. 

The only drawback with the DSLR is its size and weight. Of course you will end up wanting more lenses. I am packing two lenses and the camera and extra battery in a case. The lenses I have are a Quantary 100-300 mm and a Sony 18-70 mm. 

This seems relative to packing my 9 lb custom rifle hunting. Its a pain in the butt, until you want to do some shooting, then its great. 

You can't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. These are the brands that seem to be most used by pros. You can pay some big money to get into the nicer ones too. Once you decide on a platform and get some lenses you will probably stay with that brand because you can still use the lenses you have. 

Tough decision. Have fun.


----------

