Canon/Nikon, New/Used?

OK, no religious wars, please...

We are thinking of getting a dSLR, and initially cirling on Canon or
Nikon due to availability of used fixed-length lenses.

We will be looking at the lower end, 350d/400d/D50/D70s/D80 and spend a
bit on lenses.

Use is family stuff, including my son's football (soccer). I like to
use available light, ie lenses that can be used at f/2.8 or better are
nice.

What I would like is:
- fast autofocus
- low shutter lag (I have given up on our Canon G3 for the 2 first
reasons)
- good low-light performance

From brief fondling, it seems the Nikons fit my hands better. But what
about the more expensive Canons, perhaps 2nd-hand?

Or are used dSLRs a no-no?

I am at present using a Nikon FA + 35/2.0 + 105/2.5, that's what I am
comparing to.

Any 3rd-party zooms worth considering as alternative to the kit lenses?
Or are they so cheap you may as well have them?

As far as I can see, I am likely to want upgrades on computer (Mac)
front too, there are plenty of places for the money to go :-(

TIA

Martin

"Martin Sørensen" wrote:
OK, no religious wars, please...

Ask about religious topics, and you *will* get religious wars...

We are thinking of getting a dSLR, and initially cirling on Canon or
Nikon due to availability of used fixed-length lenses.

We will be looking at the lower end, 350d/400d/D50/D70s/D80 and spend a
bit on lenses.

Add the Pentax K100D to that list. I have not used it, or even
seen one, but it appears that it might fit your needs rather well.

Use is family stuff, including my son's football (soccer). I like to
use available light, ie lenses that can be used at f/2.8 or better are
nice.

What I would like is:
- fast autofocus
- low shutter lag (I have given up on our Canon G3 for the 2 first
reasons)
- good low-light performance

From brief fondling, it seems the Nikons fit my hands better. But what
about the more expensive Canons, perhaps 2nd-hand?

Or are used dSLRs a no-no?

Depends on how patient you are and whether you have the knack
for picking out the "right" used item. If you are careful,
"used" equals a "much better deal". If you get the wrong one it
is an expensive learning experience. :-)

I am at present using a Nikon FA + 35/2.0 + 105/2.5, that's what I am
comparing to.

Compared to 35mm film, the Nikon digital cameras are similar in
"feel" and have obvious roots as far as controls, layout, and so
on. The sensor is smaller than 35mm film and has a 1.5 "crop
factor". That results in those focal lengths working the same
53mm and 158mm lenses would on a 35mm camera. Depth-Of-Field is
a bit wider on the DSLR.

The biggest advantage of digital, however, is immediate feedback
on exposure and framing. You can look at the image, and do a
retake if it is over exposed or Aunt Mary had her mouth open and
her eyes closed.

Any 3rd-party zooms worth considering as alternative to the kit lenses?
Or are they so cheap you may as well have them?

To a great degree you "get what you pay for". The curve is
exponential though, and adding that last bell or whistle will
double the price for perhaps a very small boost in performance.
There are good 3rd party zooms, but they cost as much as Nikon
lenses with the same bells and whistles.

Given you want to shoot a fast moving sporting event, fast Auto
Focus is important, as well as low light capability. I'm not
sure how much image stabilization would help, or hinder. Perhaps
no 3rd party lense can match a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR, but
you pay for that too... (I use an 80-200 f/2.8 AFD ED.)

The greatest selling point (from my particular religious
perspective) for the Nikon over Canon is the vast array of older
lenses that are available. However, the lower end Nikon models
do not have the mechanical coupling to tell the in-camera light
meter what the aperture is set at, which greatly reduces the
functionality with those models. For the pro-model Nikons that
is not a problem.

The Pentax camera can also works with an astounding list of
older lenses. I don't know if Pentax has are similar
limitations to Nikon's on some versions of the older mounts or
not. I would want to research that carefully, but given your
prime interest is certainly going to be with newer Auto Focus
lenses, it shouldn't be much of a problem.

The particular advantage the Pentax K100D has is an image
stabilization system in the camera that works with all of those
old lenses. You don't have to pay $1600 for a 70-200mm f/2.8
lense that has VR built in...

As far as I can see, I am likely to want upgrades on computer (Mac)
front too, there are plenty of places for the money to go :-(

Going to a digital camera? Get two of the largest disks you
can find... :-)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson skrev:

Add the Pentax K100D to that list. I have not used it, or even
seen one, but it appears that it might fit your needs rather well.

Thanks, will take a look.

Or are used dSLRs a no-no?

Depends on how patient you are and whether you have the knack
for picking out the "right" used item. If you are careful,
"used" equals a "much better deal". If you get the wrong one it
is an expensive learning experience. :-)

OK - price has to be good.

I am at present using a Nikon FA + 35/2.0 + 105/2.5, that's what I am
comparing to.

Compared to 35mm film, the Nikon digital cameras are similar in
"feel" and have obvious roots as far as controls, layout, and so
on. The sensor is smaller than 35mm film and has a 1.5 "crop
factor". That results in those focal lengths working the same
53mm and 158mm lenses would on a 35mm camera. Depth-Of-Field is
a bit wider on the DSLR.

I feel the changes since the FA of the 80es are huge anyway :-)

I have seen the DOF-claim before, and I do not understand it. If you
reduce the size of the sensor, you also reduce the size of acceptable
out-of-focus blur, aka DOF. For geometrical reasons, I would therefore
expect DOF to be the same for a given angle of view, ie a dSLR with a
50mm has same DOF as a 35mm with a 75mm. If I am wrong, please show me
why!

The biggest advantage of digital, however, is immediate feedback
on exposure and framing. You can look at the image, and do a
retake if it is over exposed or Aunt Mary had her mouth open and
her eyes closed.

Oh, I can see that. And it is easy to email family & friends.

Any 3rd-party zooms worth considering as alternative to the kit lenses?
Or are they so cheap you may as well have them?

To a great degree you "get what you pay for". The curve is
exponential though, and adding that last bell or whistle will
double the price for perhaps a very small boost in performance.
There are good 3rd party zooms, but they cost as much as Nikon
lenses with the same bells and whistles.

I was considering that normal area, like 18-70 or 18-55.

The greatest selling point (from my particular religious
perspective) for the Nikon over Canon is the vast array of older
lenses that are available. However, the lower end Nikon models
do not have the mechanical coupling to tell the in-camera light
meter what the aperture is set at, which greatly reduces the
functionality with those models. For the pro-model Nikons that
is not a problem.

Well, the bodies I consider effectively do not work with my old lenses,
I am aware of that.

The Pentax camera can also works with an astounding list of
older lenses. I don't know if Pentax has are similar
limitations to Nikon's on some versions of the older mounts or
not. I would want to research that carefully, but given your
prime interest is certainly going to be with newer Auto Focus
lenses, it shouldn't be much of a problem.

The particular advantage the Pentax K100D has is an image
stabilization system in the camera that works with all of those
old lenses. You don't have to pay $1600 for a 70-200mm f/2.8
lense that has VR built in...

Worth counting in.

As far as I can see, I am likely to want upgrades on computer (Mac)
front too, there are plenty of places for the money to go :-(

Going to a digital camera? Get two of the largest disks you
can find... :-)

Yeah...

On Oct 19, 4:58 am, "Martin Sørensen"
wrote:
OK, no religious wars, please...

We are thinking of getting a dSLR, and initially cirling on Canon or
Nikon due to availability of used fixed-length lenses.

We will be looking at the lower end, 350d/400d/D50/D70s/D80 and spend a
bit on lenses.

Use is family stuff, including my son's football (soccer). I like to
use available light, ie lenses that can be used at f/2.8 or better are
nice.

What I would like is:
- fast autofocus
- low shutter lag (I have given up on our Canon G3 for the 2 first
reasons)
- good low-light performance

From brief fondling, it seems the Nikons fit my hands better. But whatabout the more expensive Canons, perhaps 2nd-hand?

Or are used dSLRs a no-no?

I am at present using a Nikon FA + 35/2.0 + 105/2.5, that's what I am
comparing to.

Any 3rd-party zooms worth considering as alternative to the kit lenses?
Or are they so cheap you may as well have them?

As far as I can see, I am likely to want upgrades on computer (Mac)
front too, there are plenty of places for the money to go :-(

TIA

Martin

There are plenty of folks who buy DSLRs and either don't like them or
want the next latest and greatest. So there are lightly used cameras in
the market place. Buy from a reputable dealer, two that come to mind
are B&H photo and KEH camera both on the web. There are a few companies
that sell factory demos too Cameta camera for one. Buy a camera that
has little shown use Excellent or mint ratings. If the outside of a
camera is beat chances are the insides are too. Ebay is OK but you want
to be able to return the camera if it doesn't work properly.
Also older AI and AIS lenses will work on Nikon's D70, D80 but won't
meter on this camera, pre AI lenses won't work at all and can damage
Nikon digitals. The D200 is the lowest camera that will fully accept
older non AF lenses (AI, AIS). Remeber to multiply the focal length of
any lens you are looking at by 1.5 (Nikon, Pentax) 1.6 (Canon) to get
the effective focal length. This reaks havoc with wide angle, a very WA
(say a 20mm) lens becomes
a middleing WA equivelent of 30mm or 32mm.
That said Canon, Nikon , or Pentax make quality cameras and have good
lenses. On the level you are looking your existing lenses probably
shouldn't be taken into consideration, though both lenses are
excellent quality lenses.

Good luck
Tom

Martin Sørensen wrote:
OK, no religious wars, please...

We are thinking of getting a dSLR, and initially cirling on Canon or
Nikon due to availability of used fixed-length lenses.

We will be looking at the lower end, 350d/400d/D50/D70s/D80 and spend a
bit on lenses.

Use is family stuff, including my son's football (soccer). I like to
use available light, ie lenses that can be used at f/2.8 or better are
nice.

Get a Canon body with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Yes, that lens is a bit
pricey but there's a good reason for that. It's probably the sharpest
zoom in the world.

Martin Sørensen wrote:

I have seen the DOF-claim before, and I do not understand it. If you
reduce the size of the sensor, you also reduce the size of acceptable
out-of-focus blur, aka DOF. For geometrical reasons, I would therefore
expect DOF to be the same for a given angle of view, ie a dSLR with a
50mm has same DOF as a 35mm with a 75mm. If I am wrong, please show me
why!

Hello,
The answer is buried in he
http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/65531552
and
http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/65531469
(I put these there during a "discussion" that took place here some time
ago; maybe you can find it in Google groups, it was titled "a step
backwards" or something like that). Sorry for the presentation, it was
not meant to be made public.

The idea is that you need to enlarge more (A times more, where A1 is
the crop factor), thus, as you said, the acceptable circle of confusion
is smaller by a factor A; also, to get the same angle of view, you need
a longer focal length (by the same factor A). And the distance bet
closest and furthest point of acceptable focus ends up being scaled by
A. All this is because the DOF depends on the focal length f and circle
of confusion c as const*c/f^2. Since c-c/A and f-f/A, blah blah. I
think it is not too hard to see geometrically why f appears
quadratically and c linearly.

Anyway, you can just use the eqn for DOF I use and repeat everything,
you'll quickly see what is going on. Much easier this way than me going
on and on.

Or pick up a compact digital (with very small sensors), and shoot
something at 35mm-equivalent 50mm f/3.5 (say). Compare the results to
film. DOF is most certainly larger. It's not just a claim.

"Annika1980" wrote:
Get a Canon body with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Yes, that lens is a bit
pricey but there's a good reason for that. It's probably the sharpest
zoom in the world.

Have to admit that is pretty close to being true fact.

The only lenses that seem to do better are the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8
and the older 80-200mm f/2.8.

MTF curves for the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS:
http://www.photodo.com/topic_15.html

MTF curves for the Nikon AF-S VR-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 G (IF):
http://www.photodo.com/topic_16.html

Test results on the Canon 70-200mm (non IS version):
http://www.photodo.com/product_256_p4.html

Test results on the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AFS (non VR):
http://www.photodo.com/product_150_p4.html


--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

I feel the changes since the FA of the 80es are huge anyway :-)

I have seen the DOF-claim before, and I do not understand it. If you
reduce the size of the sensor, you also reduce the size of acceptable
out-of-focus blur, aka DOF. For geometrical reasons, I would therefore
expect DOF to be the same for a given angle of view, ie a dSLR with a
50mm has same DOF as a 35mm with a 75mm. If I am wrong, please show me
why!


A dSLR has 1.5 crop factor.
If you whant to think geometrical to explain the DOF issue, that is an
excelent choice.

You want to keep the angle of view the same, so you reduce the
focal length of the lens with the same factor 1.5.
But you also have to scale down the distance to the subject with
1.5 and to keep the same endresult you have to shrink the subject
and the rest of the world with a factor 1.5.
So if you schrink everything (lens, aperature, sensorarea, subjectdistance,
the subject and the world) with a factor of 1.5 you get exactly the
same picture with the same DOF.

But in real live the subject is not shrunk, the world is not shrunk,
and the distance to the subject is not shrunk. And as we all know
the DOF increases with the distance, and it does increase more
than lineair. Because creating enough distance infinity will fall
within the DOF.
(That's also the reason why in 'old' films, if they shot miniatures,
they look very fake, because they did not shrink the camera's,
so they shrunk everything but not the camera, therefore they only
get very limited DOF. (Other fysical things did not shrink either).).

So with geometrical thinking you have to include all 'sizes', also the
size of the subject and the size of the distance.

Or to put it more simply, you make a drawing which is very correct
of the situation. (sensor, the projection on the sensor, the lens, the
subject). And you enlarge or shrink this drawing, everything will stay
correct. But not that also the subject and subject distance get's
enlarged or shrunk in the same way.

I know it's a bit weird explanations, but I hope this has cleared the
problem for you.

Greetings,
Ben brugman

Ben Brugman skrev:

snip detailed explanation

I know it's a bit weird explanations, but I hope this has cleared the
problem for you.

It did! Thank you very much.

/Martin

acl skrev:

The idea is that you need to enlarge more (A times more, where A1 is
the crop factor), thus, as you said, the acceptable circle of confusion
is smaller by a factor A; also, to get the same angle of view, you need
a longer focal length (by the same factor A). And the distance bet
closest and furthest point of acceptable focus ends up being scaled by
A. All this is because the DOF depends on the focal length f and circle
of confusion c as const*c/f^2. Since c-c/A and f-f/A, blah blah. I
think it is not too hard to see geometrically why f appears
quadratically and c linearly.

Anyway, you can just use the eqn for DOF I use and repeat everything,
you'll quickly see what is going on. Much easier this way than me going
on and on.

I think I get it now. And my back-of-envelope calculation tells me that
with a crop factor of 1.5, we are talking roughly 1 f-stop worth of
DOF.

Bummer. One of the things I like about my 105/2.5 is that it is very
good at isolating things at f/4, and still is very sharp. To me, lenses
that needs stopping down to f/8 to give a sharp image is a bit of a
joke.

Thanks, Martin