photography buffs, help me buy a DSLR camera

[vetiver]

Sorry to invade this thread with another question and no contribution, but:

My gf focuses on music photography (bands, typically 5-10 feet away though sometimes far distances if it's a stadium venue). What type of lens would be good for this? Package I'm looking at has 28-80mm... will this suffice?

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
go with canon. its a bigger company and has more lens variety.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is irrelevant. Nikon is big enough as a company that it is not a concern, and they offer a wide spectrum of lenses. What lens are you looking for that Nikon doesn't have? More importantly, what lens should a beginner be looking for that Nikon doesn't have?

[ QUOTE ]

also invest in lenses. they are more important than the body anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since digital SLRs are still developing, it makes sense to put more money into the lenses than in the body. Even the soon-to-be-released wonder-camera, the Nikon D3, will be surpassed in the not too distant future.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to invade this thread with another question and no contribution, but:

My gf focuses on music photography (bands, typically 5-10 feet away though sometimes far distances if it's a stadium venue). What type of lens would be good for this? Package I'm looking at has 28-80mm... will this suffice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of the lighting conditions being darker she will want fast lenses, probably starting with at least an f2 or better 50mm. I think you can find these for not too much. Unfortunately, fast zooms are spendy.

[Osprey]

Nikon definitely has momentum in the DSLR market now. The D3 and D300 look to be extremely good. Canon is famous for its expensive, white telephoto lenses, while Nikon is generally well regarded for its lenses. One of the bigger indictments of Canon was that for a long time (and it may still be), the best wide angle lens for the Eos 5D was a Nikon 17-35mm 2.8 used on an adaptor.

Also, Nikon offers a quite good 18mm-200mm lens with image stabilization (VR), that can be used as a one lens solution if you're not interested in multiple lenses.

However, I would go handle the bodies and see what feels good to you. I am a Nikon user and for me I would have to get quite a high end Canon body before they don't feel like cheap plastic or have a viewfinder like a tank slit. For instance, for the same price, the feel of the D200 was much better than the EOS 30d or 40d.

[Osprey]

BTW- Are those yellow tinted photographs from the Sigmas? Because quite afew of their lenses have yellow casts.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
40d

[/ QUOTE ]

Cannot believe it took this long into the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great camera. But more than twice as much as OP wants to spend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the 40D, the Canon 50mm f/1.2, 50mm f/1.4, MP-E 65mm macro 1-5x, 100mm f/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm macro, and a few other lenses. The camera is amazing. My only complaint so far is that photos taken indoors with the auto white balance come out sort of yellow, but that's fixable in the camera settings (and you can always add RAW capture for later processing.)

The 50mm f/1.2 costs as much as the camera, but I'm getting horribly spoiled by how it works in low light. Short of spending $3K for an f/1 (or f/0.95) lens, it's about the best I'm going to get. There's really no need for most people to spend $1500 on it though - the 50mm f/1.4 is $300, and the f/1.8 is closer to $100. The picture quality you'll get off that last one is incredible for the price.

[/ QUOTE ]

[fiskebent]

I'm a Canon guy - 1D Mark II.

There's not a lot of difference between Canon and Nikon anymore, but I like that Canon seem to think full-size sensors is the way to go with DSLRs. I also think having the focusing engine in the lenses is an advantage and since Canon have been doing it that way for a long time, their lens catalog is a bit more uniform than Nikons, imo.

Canon also have some specialized lenses that I don't think Nikon can match. Like the 50 mm f/1.2, 85 mm f/1.2 (which I have) and 200 mm f/2. And tilt and shift lenses. Somebody correct me if Nikon have lenses that match these.
They're expensive though, so it doesn't matter too much to the average photographer.

I have a couple of friends that own Nikons and they're all happy with their cameras. You really can't go wrong with either brand.

[fiskebent]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to invade this thread with another question and no contribution, but:

My gf focuses on music photography (bands, typically 5-10 feet away though sometimes far distances if it's a stadium venue). What type of lens would be good for this? Package I'm looking at has 28-80mm... will this suffice?

[/ QUOTE ]
For a well-lit venue, you can usually get away with ISO 800-1600 and f/2.8. For 'intimate' concerts, pretty much any setup will struggle.

Canon 1D Mk II, ISO1600, 85mm, f/1.2, 1/60 sec

Your focal length will depend a lot on how close you can get. 28-80 mm sounds OK when you can get close. But the maximum aperture is much more important. Unless, of course, you can use flash. I generally avoid flash if I can.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a Canon guy - 1D Mark II.

There's not a lot of difference between Canon and Nikon anymore, but I like that Canon seem to think full-size sensors is the way to go with DSLRs.

[/ QUOTE ]That's not quite true. While they do have more FF cameras than Nikon (does Nikon have any?), they also fully support the crop sensor, having just released the 40D and two new EF-S lenses.

[fiskebent]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a Canon guy - 1D Mark II.

There's not a lot of difference between Canon and Nikon anymore, but I like that Canon seem to think full-size sensors is the way to go with DSLRs.

[/ QUOTE ]That's not quite true. While they do have more FF cameras than Nikon (does Nikon have any?), they also fully support the crop sensor, having just released the 40D and two new EF-S lenses.

[/ QUOTE ]
At some point a while back a Canon exec stated that the 1 series would all have FF sensors. And the 5D has a FF sensor as well.
I agree that for consumer level cameras, both Canon and Nikon seem content with a smaller sensor.

To me, Canon sound like they want to continue making cameras with FF sensors. And I don't think Nikon has made one yet.

Usually it's not a big deal, but I have a fish-eye lens and I'd love to get the full effect from it rather than the cropped image I get today (the 1D Mk II has 1.3 multiplier sensor).
Plus a larger sensor means more light hits it, so you get a better signal/noise ratio. And I love shallow depth of field and that's easier to get with a large sensor.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
Canon also have some specialized lenses that I don't think Nikon can match. Like the 50 mm f/1.2, 85 mm f/1.2 (which I have) and 200 mm f/2. And tilt and shift lenses. Somebody correct me if Nikon have lenses that match these.
They're expensive though, so it doesn't matter too much to the average photographer.

I have a couple of friends that own Nikons and they're all happy with their cameras. You really can't go wrong with either brand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nikon has f1.4 versions of the 50mm and 85mm lenses,and a manual focus 50mm f1.2. They also have a 200mm f2. The 50mm f1.4 is pretty reasonable, less than $300, but the others are pretty pricey, very much so for the 200mm (more than $4k).

And to second, or third (or fourth) it - either brand should work just fine.