Help, my first DSLR, what to buy in oz?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/26/2008 09:00:08 PM · #1

Ok, I have a go ahead from the financial adviser (wife) to buy my first DSLR. The question is which one. I have been using an Panasonic FZ20 for a couple of years now, and haven't owned an SLR since the late 80's early 90's. But I wouldn't call my a complete novice at driving a camera and am not one overwhelmed by new technology, so was looking for something a little better than a bare entry level.

I have about $1500 Australian dollars (what ever thats worth this week :)) and now have to decide on what I want to by.
1) I like flexibility, so a good walk around lens (pref stabilised).
2) Have the occasional need/want for a longer lens (300mm)

types of photos I take:
family
travel
sport
air shows
and some flexibility to be creative, entering challenges and having fun with photography.
some old stuff at My website

At the moment I think d90 with 18-105VR, 70-300VR, 50f1.8 and an SB600 would be ideal but outside my price range.

I could pick up a d80 with 18-105VR and 70-300G for about $1450, or move up to a 40D or a D90 but have less on lenses. Of course there are the other brands which would be cheaper again, but I'm not as confident in laying out $$s for them (should I consider them though?).

So my dilemma is what is a good set up to go with that will last me a while for $$s (no need for pro quality, but something I'm going to be happy with). Are there cheaper sigma/tamron lens I should consider?

Thanks
Tony, confused by choice.

Five_Seat

Canon EOS-6D

10/26/2008 09:09:41 PM · #2

Noticing that you want to shoot sports and air shows, I think you would be well served with Canon's 1.6 Crop Factor. Note that on a 20/30/40/50D, 200mm = 320mm. This will help you save some money when you are looking for more length. Just something to consider.

dd1989

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS

10/26/2008 09:14:07 PM · #3

Go for in-body image stabilization then you can use non IS (and cheaper $$) lenses and still have them stabilized.

the Olympus E-520, ftw!!

10/26/2008 09:26:45 PM · #4

Originally posted by dd1989:

Go for in-body image stabilization then you can use non IS (and cheaper $$) lenses and still have them stabilized.

the Olympus E-520, ftw!!

The 520 was one of my early considerations but I have been put off a bit with some of the reviews when it comes to IQ and ISO performance, the camera is still in the back of my mind as I like the wireless flash ability, size and price!

It seems to me that the kit lenses with a lot of the "other" brands are pretty poor and once you've shelled out for a comparable lens your back at the Canon/Nikon prices again?

But as I said I'm just trying to get a handle on this stuff, and could be way out :)

sir_bazz

Pentax K-5

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

10/26/2008 09:32:04 PM · #5

Originally posted by millsa:

You should also consider the Pentax K20D. Has all that but may be a little large for your likings.
It has all those features and weathersealed as well.

Originally posted by millsa:

It seems to me that the kit lenses with a lot of the "other" brands are pretty poor and once you've shelled out for a comparable lens your back at the Canon/Nikon prices again?

On the contrary, the Olympus kit lens is pretty good. The Canon kit lenses have always been pretty bad. Only their latest versions have only just caught up to the competitions.

bazz.

10/26/2008 09:32:44 PM · #6

Originally posted by sjl2116:

Is there that much of a difference in the real world between 1.5 and 1.6? the 2x and FF I can see a big difference. Also a cheap 300mm lens is cheaper than compensating for the wide end when it comes to those travel photos when you want that full vista, another thing that puts me off the 4/3rds kits. The 40D is on top of my list every second day, sadly the 50D is out of my reach!

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/26/2008 09:42:48 PM · #7

Originally posted by sir_bazz:

On the contrary, the Olympus kit lens is pretty good. The Canon kit lenses have always been pretty bad. Only their latest versions have only just caught up to the competitions.

bazz.

I was thinking more the Sony and maybe Pentax. Though as a Pentax user you might be able to comment on that (gotta say I don't see much IQ problems with your shots!). The lenses for Olympus seem good, its the small sensor that some reviews say has less than desirable IQ and ISO performance.

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

10/26/2008 09:43:30 PM · #8

I have the d80 and the 18-200 VR Lens--a good walking around set up--you might not need to go the 18-105 and 70-300 route: plus, not changing lenses means less chance for sensor dust problems. If I was buying today, I would get the d90 and 18-200VR, maybe snag the 1.8 50mm prime (at $100, a bit cheaper than the 1.4 50mm that I really want).

Ironworker

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

10/26/2008 09:52:07 PM · #9

I would suggest to you that a Nikon d80, d50 or a used/demo d200 would be an ideal choice. I have the d70, and I have bought a number of my lenses used for very little $, relatively speaking. I have a 300mm f/4 AF that I picked up for 1/3 the cost of the newest version. The fact that almost all of Nikon's F mount lenses made since 1959, will work on their digital SLRs was the deciding factor for me. Just be aware that the the D40, D40x, D60, and D90 don't have the internal AF motor, so older AF-d lenses are Manual Focus on them.

kenskid

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/26/2008 10:19:41 PM · #10

I just bought the D90 with the 18-105 from bhcameravideo. The price on the webpage said $1299 US but when I called to place the order, I was quote $1230 ! I then said "I'll take it" and I opted for the overnight shipping for $40 and I still came out ahead of the advertised price.

I had the d70 for 3.5 years and it still works well with over 25,000 shots.

I really like the D90 so far. You can see my first shotsby clicking here.

Good luck.

Kenny

dd1989

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS

10/26/2008 10:56:28 PM · #11

Originally posted by millsa:

Originally posted by sir_bazz:
On the contrary, the Olympus kit lens is pretty good. The Canon kit lenses have always been pretty bad. Only their latest versions have only just caught up to the competitions.

bazz.

I was thinking more the Sony and maybe Pentax. Though as a Pentax user you might be able to comment on that (gotta say I don't see much IQ problems with your shots!). The lenses for Olympus seem good, its the small sensor that some reviews say has less than desirable IQ and ISO performance.

The Zuiko kit lenses are pretty amazing to be honest, I've played around with my friend's new 450d and the kit lens lets the package down.

Don't be put off by the "smaller sensor size" thing - Olympus aren't morons, they know what they're doing, and honestly, noise just isn't ever an issue unless you're going above ~800, in which case you ought to consider is this *really* a photo-worthy situation.

kaiser_chief

Nikon D90

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D

10/26/2008 11:40:09 PM · #12

Originally posted by Ironworker:

Just be aware that the the D40, D40x, D60, and D90 don't have the internal AF motor, so older AF-d lenses are Manual Focus on them.

I know the D40 and D60 do not havbe the internal AF motor, but my understanding was that the D90 did have it, and therefore the AF-d lenses are no problem on the D90.