# Options:



## seawings (Aug 28, 2004)

I know very little about photography, however, having recently retired and always wanting to learn more about photography am about to begin.

I have the opportunity to cash in some of my frequent flyer miles for a camera. The two options are:

Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi, which comes with a 17-85 IS lens kit
or
Nikon D80 with a (7.5x)18-135 lens

Now I know that there are those having a great deal of experience in Canon's and Nikon's and prefer one over the other. 

I have begun an internet search on each and both come with great reports as entry level DSLR cameras. 

Your comments and guidance would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

Got a coin? I know nothing, but a quick scan indicates to me that a coin toss would do as well as any way of choosing. I give my vote to the D80. But only by a few points. This is base on what is in the following article. I do not have a camera I use at present and have no plans for one in my near future. I do not know how old the article might be.

Compare


----------



## seawings (Aug 28, 2004)

Thanks for the comparison article. While the D80 seems to have some edges I am curious about the EOS's Intergrated Cleaning System...seems like a great addition. I recall some time back reading on this forum about the problems with "dust" problems showing up on pictures..and the expense or difficulty of cleaning. Therefore (yes/no?) the ICS might be worth condidering.


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

I clean my d50/70/200 sensors quite frequently. I really don't see it as a bother but I'm also a "gear head" and doing such things is pretty natural for me. Also if you aren't changing lenses all the time, you may never have a problem with dust. I change lenses 10 times a day sometimes so I have a lot more opportunity to introduce dust. If I couldn't clean a senseor myself, I'd be toast... If you're the type that has a hard time changing the batteries in a flashlight then you might consider the canon.

One big question is how do you plan to use the camera. Do you want to get into sports photography, macro, portraits, scenery, wildlife, etc.. Do you want to go "professional"? If you have special interests it might be worth looking into someplace like Pbase to see what others are using to shoot the kind of things you are interested in. Pbase also will have a lot of pictures from various cameras to look at. Just select what ever camera or lens interests you. Use the search for specific types of pictures.
http://www.pbase.com/cameras

I also like the ability to use cheap old manual focus lenses on my Nikons. It's more entertaining for me to take a vintage manual lense and get a decent shot. The picture itself is only half the fun for me. If you are just going to use new digital lenses, I think it's literally a coin toss.

I like my moon pictures. If I had a Canon, I simply couldn't have gotten them. I shot them with a 30 year old manual 600mm lens (I got cheap off ebay) that mounts on any of my Nikons. http://www.pbase.com/arlon/moon

Canon on the other hand probably has the absolute best real macro lens available for about $850. My favorite manual focus Nikon macro lens cost me $35 but isn't anywhere close to the same league as Canons 65mm 1-5x macro lens..


----------



## seawings (Aug 28, 2004)

Arlon said:


> One big question is how do you plan to use the camera.


 Good question...as a novice / wanabe hobbyist, I don't have a particular area of interest. I am constantly amazed at the variety and quality of pictures I see on 2Cool and will probably try everything at first. Therefore, my search is for a good beginner's camera that can be added to as I narrow my focus (no pun intended).  




Arlon said:


> I also like the ability to use cheap old manual focus lenses on my Nikons.


I like the concept of adding equipment at a fairly reasonable cost. 

I will also go to pbase and check out what folks are shooting&#8230;good idea. 

Thanks for your ideas and views.


----------



## Donnie Hayden (Mar 7, 2005)

That was why I chose the Nikon D40. I wanted a good entry level camera and it was highly recommended, plus it was in the price range I wanted to be in. It came with the 18-55 lens and then I bought a 55-200. I have been very happy with the camera.


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

My wife uses a D50 with the 18-200 VR lens. Lens cost more than the camera but is one of the best "do all" lenses I've seen. It's a very sharp lens for the wide range it offers. It's basically a one lens camera with that one. She hates to change lenses so the 18-200 was just about the only way to go for her.


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

A view from the other side....

Much like you, a number of years ago...I was recently retired and decided to take up photography. Actually, I'd been snapping away for over 50 years..but most of the "experience" was in the FIRST ten years, not in the last 40.

I bought an Ultra Zoom camera. Often called a "bridge" camera. Ultra/Zoom-Bridge cameras (Canon S3 or S5; Nikon P80; Sony H50; Panasonic; Fuji; Olympus etc. all make them ). 

They are considered DSLR "like" but have smaller sensors and one cannot completely change out the lenses on them. Heck, when I bought my first one, I thought that I was buying an inexpensive DSLR! That shows how little I knew at the time...

The Ultra zoom ( my first UZ-Bridge camera was a Sony H-2 that was later stolen) gave me a wide spread of lens ranges ( 36mm to 432 mm).. all at once, built in. That feature defines the ZOOM part of the name.. NO lens changing!. 

I took a couple of years ....and 14,000 shots ...defining what I like and what I don't like about photography. Many of those shots are posted on my Flickr site...LINK below.. Pretty much everything prior to a month ago was taken with a UZ camera. 

I found an interest in shooting sports and wildlife, and not one in portraiture or landscape. Those are just my interests..and they are, perhaps, way different than another person's interests. 

I picked up a couple of add-on lenses ( a 70% teleconverter for $100.00; a Macro add-on for $60.00). I didn't really need any of them, as the 36mm-432 mm range of the base camera covers more ground than most people ever will see or can utilize. 

Recently I bought a shiny new DSLR and a ton of lenses. I enjoy shooting it and certainly agree that the DSLR takes great and better shots....but...if I had started off with it, and I had to put up with changing lenses; carrying a bunch of gear and tripods and lenses, etc...I might have given this hobby up long ago.

So, for me...an inexpensive Canon S3 or S5 ( under $300.00 these days) does 95% of what I need ...and it gave me a great and a firm platform from which to grow. 

I am heading off for a Canadian fishing trip in a few days. The S3 goes with me...the DSLR stays home. Picture taking opportunities during my week on a fishing island will be better served with my beloved Canon S3 Ultra Zoom!

regards, Rich

p.s A fellow by the name of AAKatz wrote a "White Paper" covering bridge cameras. It would make a good read. Google it! RG


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

Rich, that's a real interesting perspective in gear selection that I've not heard before, but it makes a whole lot of sense. In retrospect, I did the same thing you did, but it was back in the film era where I eventually moved up to an SLR. Even then, when I started digital, I started with a Nikon Coolpix, though it was one with manual modes. So I went through your gear selection scenario twice, once for film, and again for digital. If I had started with a DSLR right off the bat, it would have been very challenging for me to pick one and get good results from it. One thing I would like to add to what you said; After owning a bridge camera, you'll have the knowledge of features and functions that will help you make a better selection when it comes time to buy a DSLR that suits your subject matter and shooting style. I think the odds are a lot higher that you would be more satisfied with your choice. 

I think the caveat though is some of the newer DSLRs on the market with various scene shooting modes that emulate a lot of bridge cameras that might also be a good first choice. If that is your choosen starting point, I think you need to pay more attention to the total camera system of lenses, flash, and accessories as you are more likely to be locking yourself into a "brand" at this point because your eventual investment in lenses and accessories will probably outweigh the value of the camera body itself.


----------



## seawings (Aug 28, 2004)

Pocketfisherman said:


> I think you need to pay more attention to the total camera system of lenses, flash, and accessories as you are more likely to be locking yourself into a "brand" at this point because your eventual investment in lenses and accessories will probably outweigh the value of the camera body itself.


 Good point! I gathered that fact as I began researching my two options. Professional or amateur, the allure of additional lenses and other gadgets escalate the initial investment rather quickly.


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

Seawings, like you and Rich, I'm also retired and doing what I knew all along I wanted to do - sports photography. Add a little nature/wildlife stuff and that's me in a nut shell.

When I moved from a film camera (Canon A-1) to digital, I made a couple of mistakes. I bought a Kodak digital and realized at my first cheer competition, it wasn't going to work. It was too slow to focus. Then I bought an Olympus C-540. It had zoom, lots of features, but was still too slow to focus and not good for low light photography...at least not for me.

Then I bought a Canon Digital Rebel XT. I was in heaven. Next came a few lenses, including the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the Bigma 50-500. Unfortunately, it wasn't too long, I got the yearning for more. Bigger and faster, just like drag racing! 

Now that I am doing sports photoraphy a lot, I have 2 bodies, a Canon 40D and a 30D. And lenses designed for sports - Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and soon to be delivered Canon 70-200 f/2.8. Other lenses in my bag include a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, and a set of Kenko auto extension tubes. All are great quality and make excellent images. Note to f/2.8 maximum f/stops. That allows a lot of light in through the lens allowing for easier focus and coupled with high ISO settings (3200), low light capability. That's a plus for me because often I find myself in low light situations such as a graduation ceremony in Reliant Center, high school auditorium, church auditorium, high school football, baseball and softball fields. Those all require high ISO, f/2.8 aperature and a shutterspeed of 1/400 - 1/640 to stop the action.

I guess the moral to this story is it's a never ending quest not only to do better, but to have better quality gear to provide the tools to make the better images.

Also, I don't think brand names have anything to do with it. Canon or Nikon both offer the euipment I would need and the third party lens makers do also.

BTW, I am having fun being retired. Some of you guys need to hurry up and give it a try! 

Good luck in your search.
Mike


----------

