Quantcast

I got to play with fancy glass last night

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
63
behind the viewfinder
Played some more tonight, this time with the D300 mated to an 18-135 f3.5.

I'm seriously thinking about selling a bike and getting something. Currently debating between a 30D, 40D, or D300.

I've put together a 30D kit with a Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 EF-S IS USM (is it that much better than the 18-55 without USM? will a non-USM lens autofocus?) lens and Sigma 30 F1.4 for $1500. I don't see much over the 30D the 40D has than MP count.

I lust after the D300, but it just seems more blingy than anything, with the zomg 51 point AF, and I reaally need/want superb low light performance.
what's your budget?
what are your preferences, shooting-wise?
what is your existing equipment?
 

moff_quigley

Why don't you have a seat over there?
Jan 27, 2005
4,402
2
Poseurville
Blue if you're gonna go Canon 1.6 crop bodies I'd seriously consider the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM since you want low light performance. All reports say it is an "L" quality lens without the weather sealing. We have 16-35L, 28-70L, and 70-200L (2.8 IS), but I'm planning ahead cause sooner or later the wife will probably pick up a 5D.

Glass is expensive though.
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
what's your budget?
what are your preferences, shooting-wise?
what is your existing equipment?
1) Low. $1500 or so would be nice, but I can stretch it like Huckabee can stretch skin.
2) Low-light. Portraits. Landscapes.
3) Ye olde D40 kit and a F1.8 50mm lens.

Allow me to quote what I posted in a photography forum posing the question.

blue said:
30D v. 40D v. D300

Which would you choose and why?

I'm an amateur photographer that sells a few prints here and there. I used to be shooting on a Canon Powershot A620, the point and shoot of doom and destruction, until I swapped the tranny out of my Jetta for a D40 kit a couple months ago. I shoot a ton of low-light stuff (think abandoned buildings), and would like to get into portraits/wedding photography ($$$). The past couple days a friend and I have been swapping between his new D300, the 18-135 f3.5 lens he got with it, a borrowed 80-200 f2.8, and the 18-55mm kit lens from my D40, shooting various random crap and people. Needless to say, it really brought all the niggling things my little D40 does to the forefront. Lack of AF motor, dials, awful high-ISO performance, terrible AF, etc. The 80-200 2.8 thoroughly overwhelmed the poor little body and its poor AF.

I'm currently hinging on the cameras in the title. I don't have a problem switching over to Canon stuff, as the only lens I have for my D40 aside from the mediocre 18-55 is an old 50mm F1.8 E-series.

The 30D is currently the front runner. I've pieced together a kit using used and new stuff from KEH and B&H for $1500. Lenses are a Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 EF-S IS USM and Sigma 30mm F1.4. I don't see what the 40D offers over it, aside from a higher MP count and bigger LCD. Will the 40D make a serious difference in print quality/sizes? I was comfortably printing 11x17s with the Powershot and it's poor quality 7.1mp, and could have gone bigger without seriously sacrificing quality. At $1500, I have room in the budget left over for big CF card, a remote, an external flash, and a nice Manfrotto tripod.

The D300 is gorgeous, but I'm just not sure if it's worth the extra dough. If I were to get it, I could only get one Lens in the $300 range (likely the 18-135 or 18-200), along with my 50 F1.8 - and take a big hit in the wallet. I shot with it tonight, and it's a great camera, but it seems more packed with bells and whistles than anything else. The copious autofocus points seem redundant, and 12.8mp is just...more. I'm not really willing to consider any other Nikon bodies, simply owing to their poor high ISO performance. $2200 leaves me penniless with a single semi-mediocre lens, a crappy tripod, and a small CF card.
I suppose my biggest concern might be "outgrowing" the 30D...A suggestion over there is the D200. I'm wondering how it does in high-ISO situations.

pinkshirtphotos said:
i want the d300 because of 51 point af, 8fps, looks cool, lets me use more nikon lenses with auto focus, live view might be useful once and a while, the mp count is pretty nice too. from what i see its the d2hs, but with higher mp count, and a lower price tag?
And this is where your input into this thread should end.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
63
behind the viewfinder
the 40D has some AF improvements as well, and some other bells and whistles which may not be important to you (improved fps to 6.5, live view, and some others). but, i've heard that the sensor is actually less sensitive than the 30D, so that hurts your low light performance.

by all accounts the D300 is a great camera, but it would exceed your budget and you would be strapped for glass. i guess it depends on how fast you want to build yr lens stable.

you might look into a used 30D (sorry splat, i'm gonna hang onto mine even if i do get another camera; it's nice to shoot w/ 2 bodies when you are under the 2-3 song restriction); i've heard of some going for as low as $700 or so. i doubt you'd see much if any difference in print quality between the 30D and 40D; can't speak the D300. not sure how well the D200 works @ high ISO, but i've heard that the 30D is better.

the sigma 30 f/1.4 lens is awesome, as long as you get a correctly calibrated copy (mine's been fine since i got it, but there are more than enough stories out there to question the QC of sigma). you can land that for $350 or so. a tripod and remote release might be of interest to you as well, esp for that very low light/building stuff, but that takes away some of the speed/stealth factor.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,092
1,132
NC
i guess it depends on how fast you want to build yr lens stable.
I think that's the key there.

I don't believe there's any question that nice lenses are more important than an upgraded camera body, but if your shooting consists primarily of a walk-around lens and then a super fast prime for low-light stuff, well, your initial lens budget doesn't have to be that big. Hell, the D300 can even meter with old, non-CPU lenses so eBay can be a treasure trove of high quality, older glass - a lot of older lenses are ideal for portraits.

If you need the lenses, though, especially if you want something like a decent telephoto... hindering yourself with a nice camera body and being unable to frame your subject with an appropriate focal length doesn't make much sense.
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,959
35
weird that Picasa would delete ISO, since it's reporting things i have no clue about:
Turns out it was ISO 800. Hmm.

Weird about the Picasa thing. It might be a Linux Picasa thing too - it's actually the Windows version and runs in Ubuntu under a mod version of Wine, it's not Linux native. Maybe something gets lost in the translation?

I was originally going to make a Picasa web album so I did a batch of pics, then decided to Flickr them instead.

Picasa is a nice viewer, but it does funky stuff.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,092
1,132
NC
So, let me get this straight... ISO 800 isn't low light, but one stop more is? I see. Hooray for arbitrary designations! :clapping:

Almost as good as douglas defining what is and isn't actually "riding" - or "epic."

Besides, my Sony digicam looks equally good at that size ;)
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,092
1,132
NC
do you think that ISO is a linear relation, noise-wise, on the sensor?
Of course not. That has no bearing here, though.

The Invisible Pigeon-Holing Council has determined that the cutoff for "low light photography" is ISO 800. Also, "action photography" starts at a shutter speed of 1/500th and it's not actually "birding" unless you have a minimum focal length of 400mm.

Funny, though, when that exploded comet was visible I was doing ISO 200 exposures, and I could have sworn it was pretty low light. Silly me.

:monkeydance:
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
63
behind the viewfinder
if you are using a tripod, then 'low light/high ISO' changes drastically. i'd imagine you know that.

defining action photography @ 1/500th is silly...no supported flash sync for that speed.
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,959
35
really? damn. i thought it was around 1/320 or so.

way past? like how high?
It's spec'd at 1/500.

I've had on-camera flash sync (my old Sunpak 333 on the hotshoe) to 1/2000.

Off-camera w/ a PC cord to at least 1/1000+ fvcking around w/ capturing milk drops splashing in a dish, etc.

It might go higher before issues creep in. I've never pushed it.



D40 also syncs to 1/500. One of the sleeper pluses of that camera.
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,959
35
So can we agree:

Canon superior for low-light, no flash shooting. (ISO performance)

Nikon superior for on and off camera flash shooting. (flash sync and control)
 

highrevs

Monkey
Oct 13, 2005
827
0
NC
So can we agree:

Canon superior for low-light, no flash shooting. (ISO performance)

Nikon superior for on and off camera flash shooting. (flash sync and control)
??? So the D3 is not a contender for low light photography ???

I'm not trying to continue the brand loyalty war, but i thought Nikon pretty much upped the anti with thier latest release.
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,959
35
??? So the D3 is not a contender for low light photography ???

I'm not trying to continue the brand loyalty war, but i thought Nikon pretty much upped the anti with thier latest release.
I wasn't talking model specifics, just general brand attributes.

The D3 does not improve the high ISO performance of the rest of the Nikon line.

If I were to pick a lower end model for high ISO, I'd go Canon. If I wanted high flash sync and control, I'd go Nikon. (which I did).


Nikon CLS is there if I ever need it too. (D70s has a remote commander feature)
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
Bwar.

How's Tamron glass? It's cheap, so I'm guessing it's a case of you get what you pay for, but I'm curious.

I need to find a 30D locally to play with.
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
Anyone have a good place (meaning: cheap) for new/used Canon gear?

If I get a 30D, it will be new...if I get a D200, likely used. Those aren't cheap yet. It's still a 50/50 split...if the D200 had high-ISO performance like the 30D, it would be a no-brainer.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
63
behind the viewfinder
i've gotten used lenses from both fora w/ no problem. there are usually stickied 'good seller' threads to search. like anything, though, it's caveat emptor, and the mods will not get involved if there's a dispute.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
Bwar.

How's Tamron glass? It's cheap, so I'm guessing it's a case of you get what you pay for, but I'm curious.

I need to find a 30D locally to play with.
I like my Tamron 17-50. Sharp, good color, reasonably fast AF. No stability control, and no USM/HSM motor, but still pretty good. As with anybody, Tamron makes good and bad lenses...
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
The 50mm F1.8 has arrived. It's fun. It's touchy on the focusing...even for being a "cheap" piece of glass, it feels a lot more solid than a lot of stuff made today. Sadly, I'm nearly sure I'll be going the Canon route. Most likely a 30D or 40D. I really really really want the D200...but the ISO noise kills it for me. Maybe the 5Ds successor will be released in the next month or two and I'll be able to go for full-frame goodness.
 

moff_quigley

Why don't you have a seat over there?
Jan 27, 2005
4,402
2
Poseurville
I think KEH prices are kinda high. There's been a few lightly used 30D's on ebay selling for <$700 lately. Adorama usually has a nice selection of Canon refurb bodies and lenses. POTN and Fred Miranda are great resources too. I got her 16-35L off FM for $825 which is a really sweet deal. Keep your eyes open.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
63
behind the viewfinder
The 50mm F1.8 has arrived. It's fun. It's touchy on the focusing...even for being a "cheap" piece of glass, it feels a lot more solid than a lot of stuff made today. Sadly, I'm nearly sure I'll be going the Canon route. Most likely a 30D or 40D. I really really really want the D200...but the ISO noise kills it for me. Maybe the 5Ds successor will be released in the next month or two and I'll be able to go for full-frame goodness.
er, if you want to go w/ full-frame goodness, you will need to adjust yr budget...used 5Ds (in good shape/low count) are still at least 1600 or so...depending on what the new 5D successor is priced at, this could impact that used market.