Camera's

[Peterjay 0]

Is it just me, or is there anybody else out there who wishes the marketing bozos at Canon and Nikon would PLEASE come up with better naming systems for their products? D200, 300D, 40D, D40, D3, 5D, D2x, 1Ds Mark II, 1D markIII? I think I have a Canon, but I'm getting to the point where I have to keep checking. At least Apple has the good sense to name their systems after big cats. I know I have a Tiger and a Leopard, but if I had more than one camera, I'd have to paint numbers on the damned things. How about Nikon: Mallard, Teal, Pintail, and Bufflehead? Or Canon: Bluefin, Albacore, Skipjack, and Bonito? Anything's better than what they have now. Or maybe worrying about stuff like this is the first sign of insanity.

[troutgeek 0]

Is it just me, or is there anybody else out there who wishes the marketing bozos at Canon and Nikon would PLEASE come up with better naming systems for their products? D200, 300D, 40D, D40, D3, 5D, D2x, 1Ds Mark II, 1D markIII? I think I have a Canon, but I'm getting to the point where I have to keep checking. At least Apple has the good sense to name their systems after big cats. I know I have a Tiger and a Leopard, but if I had more than one camera, I'd have to paint numbers on the damned things. How about Nikon: Mallard, Teal, Pintail, and Bufflehead? Or Canon: Bluefin, Albacore, Skipjack, and Bonito? Anything's better than what they have now. Or maybe worrying about stuff like this is the first sign of insanity.

 

Funny... to add to the confusion, Canon has used both D30, and 30D for model numbers...

[Tybugs1 0]

Len, I use a Nikon D200, and bring at least two different lenses on stream with me. The Simms large camera belt with the roll-down-top, is water proof and hold my camera with any of my lenses attached, including either a 300mm f/4 or 70-200 f/2.8. I bought two of the seperate Simms camera bags, that slide onto the main belt-bag, and they easily hold other lenses, flash, filters, etc. I keep everything sealed up until it's time to take a photo, then I take out the camera, put the strap around my neck, shoot, and put it back in the bag, roll the top down and snap both fasteners tight. I've used roll-top tyes of bags for years with my old Sony to keep it dry, even waded with it fully submerged for hours, and it never got wet. I keep desicant bags and blocks in my on-stream bags, but I'll try to never let my new belt setup get submerged. I am confident the roll top style will stay dry inside, even if I fall into the water. I use this system as my wading belt, and keep the main bag in the rear, like a fanny-bag, and it easily spins to the front when I want to grab the camera. That said, it is much lighter to leave the camera on shore instead of wearing it all day, and Eagle Creek makes a security device that has a retractable steel cord and built-in alarm, which can be set for motion, allowing for securing the bag to a tree, if necessary, and makes a loud noise if the bag is moved. This security device has a combination lock.

 

Hi Graham and other Photo Bugs

 

I'm thinking I want the NikonD200. I like the fact it's more water tight than the others and it's metal. Out on guide trips this is going to be important. What I need to know now is what lenses do I get? I know I cannot afford the top of the line lenses

 

So what would be the average lense, better and best?

Are the package deals on Nikon D200 with Nikor lenses on ebay a good deal?

 

Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-80mm f/3.558mm

Wide Angle Lens -5.6 Aspherical Autofocus Lens

Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Macro Autofocus Lens

 

Some of the packages are offering:

 

 

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor

Titanium .45x Wide Angle Lens

 

 

Any of these lenses decent? Can I get by with these lenses until I can up grade?

 

Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.

 

thanks

Lynn

 

[troutgeek 0]

I'm not a Nikon guy (actually, I like their point and shoots), but I've heard that the Nikkor 18-200 is pretty sweet.

[Graham 0]

Hi Lynn, I think a nice non-top-shelf combo for the Nikon D200 is the Nikon 18-200 and the Sigma 105 macro. I really burden myself on stream carrying a collection of lenses, and changing them frequently when dust of moisture is in the air can be worrysome, and having an 18-200 would allow for shooting all day without changing lenses, except for macro shots. I think the 18-200 sells for about $800, which isn't too bad considering how versatile this lens is. I love shooting fast moving birds and the 18-200 would likely not focus as fast as a 2.8 or prime f/4, so I carry a 70-200 /2.8 as well as a 300 f/4 and a TC-14. Seems like there's always tradeoffs, such as, a super versatile lens like an 18-200 will likely have a touch of distorsion at the maximum and minimum focal ranges, light-fall-off and softness in the corners, chromatic aborations, etc, but these are things that likely would never be noticed by 99.99% of those admiring your images.

 

The late Galen Rowell often used the lightest most inexpensive Nikon lenses to capture his incredible images. Some of the same lenses that came with my Nikon N80 kit several years ago. If I ever have to lug camera gear to mountain tops like Galen did, I would likely take my light weight kit lenses with me, confident that it's the photographer not the lenses that make beautiful photographs.

 

I just pulled those lenses out of their dusty bag, they are the Nikon 50mm 1.8, 28-80 zoom 3-5.6, and the 70-300 4-5.6. The 50mm 1.8 is a great little lens, super lightweight, nice for portraits, and likely good on-stream as well. I can't get over how light these lenses feel when compared to faster glass. I think I'll keep these lenses on my desk and take them ouside to play with later.

 

Graham

 

 

[Tybugs1 0]

Hi Lynn, I think a nice non-top-shelf combo for the Nikon D200 is the Nikon 18-200 and the Sigma 105 macro. I really burden myself on stream carrying a collection of lenses, and changing them frequently when dust of moisture is in the air can be worrysome, and having an 18-200 would allow for shooting all day without changing lenses, except for macro shots. I think the 18-200 sells for about $800, which isn't too bad considering how versatile this lens is. I love shooting fast moving birds and the 18-200 would likely not focus as fast as a 2.8 or prime f/4, so I carry a 70-200 /2.8 as well as a 300 f/4 and a TC-14. Seems like there's always tradeoffs, such as, a super versatile lens like an 18-200 will likely have a touch of distorsion at the maximum and minimum focal ranges, light-fall-off and softness in the corners, chromatic aborations, etc, but these are things that likely would never be noticed by 99.99% of those admiring your images.

 

The late Galen Rowell often used the lightest most inexpensive Nikon lenses to capture his incredible images. Some of the same lenses that came with my Nikon N80 kit several years ago. If I ever have to lug camera gear to mountain tops like Galen did, I would likely take my light weight kit lenses with me, confident that it's the photographer not the lenses that make beautiful photographs.

 

I just pulled those lenses out of their dusty bag, they are the Nikon 50mm 1.8, 28-80 zoom 3-5.6, and the 70-300 4-5.6. The 50mm 1.8 is a great little lens, super lightweight, nice for portraits, and likely good on-stream as well. I can't get over how light these lenses feel when compared to faster glass. I think I'll keep these lenses on my desk and take them ouside to play with later.

 

Graham

 

 

Would 1800.00 be a good price for a D200 and this lense Nikon 18-200 mm F/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF DX VR Lens?

 

[troutgeek 0]

$1,800.00 is not ridiculously cheap, where I'd wonder if it was a legit offer. Looks like the average new internet price of a D200 is $1,400. The average new internet price of an 18-200 is $700. You're getting a lot of camera for $1,800.

 

I'm waiting to see what happens with Canon's 5D -- rumors of a new model in January.

[Wulff 0]

Just my 2 copper.

 

Lynn, chances are you will replace your body at some point, particularily if this is your first DSLR and the hobby/pursuit really gets a hold of you. Where as, your lenses if you take care of them can last years and years. I would budget atleast half to glass. All else being equal I would recommend you get one good peice of glass in the area that most interest you, be it landscape, portraits, telephoto. It takes time to build up a collection of lenses.

 

By budgeting the bulk towards your body and settling for "good enough for now" lenes your going to end up replacing everything at some point.

vs buying a lens that will last for an untold length of time and a body that will probably be replaced regardless which way you go.

 

For comparative purposes only

Canon 40D:; $1,400

Canon 17-40 f4 L $700

Canon 80-200 f4 L $700

 

About 2,800

 

vs

Canon 5D $2,500

Canon 18-55 (kit lens)

Sigma 75-300 $300 to $400 (im not sure)

 

So either way youd spend about 3G give or take. With setup 1 those are two of Canons better lenses and can last a lifetime and when your ready you upgrade the body

 

Vs at some point replacing all 3 items.

 

Glass last and make a noticeale difference in IQ, and holds its value. Bodies dont.

 

 

 

 

 

[troutgeek 0]

If you change that Canon 40D to a 30D, you could change that 80-200 f4 L to a 80-200 f2.8 L or a 80-200 f4 IS L for the same $. Nice lenses with even more bling!

[Ashby 0]

Myself, I would go with the Canon. The Canon 40D in particular. It's basically the 30D rebuilt with upgraded 14-bit processor along with the CMOS sensor strait out of the EOS-1D pro cam. This thing is a pro cam made for the consumer. You name it, it does it, even things you can't name lol. It has a 3in screen, also live shoot capability, silent shooting capability for when you need to be very quiet, 35 zone evaluative metering for quick shots. Six different picture style settings for digital equal of wet film you may want to use, and settings for each of those. Three auto set functions meaning, if you love to shoot indoor action shots (kids basketball) you set one of the setting for that style shooting and from then on when you are doing that style shooting, you just set the dial to (in the case of these three settings C1 to C3)say C1 and go. It has the fastest push button to ready to shoot time of 0.15 seconds. That is not even breaking the tip of what all this thing can do. Basically no need to upgrade unless you want t full frame camera. Oh yeah, and it's made of a solid Magnesium body, and weather resistant, nothing is weather proof without a sealed case unless it says so.

 

Lenses, Canon has one of the largest ranges of lenses along with your off brand lenses that are made to fit Canon. Canon lenses (ultrasonic USM) are the fastest on the market and most accurate for AF. There are no motors in the USM line, they work off of ultrasonic wave pulses and adjust in micro seconds for that shot. Even on 6.5 shot per second (the 40D shooting speed) it can auto focus in between each shot. They are unreal, but worth it.

 

I will be getting mine in late Jan, I'm still researching this thing. Everything I have looked up, test shot etc is what I'm wanting in a camera, and will want for time to come. Good lenses are a must, they will always outlast the camera, and in most cases make the shot. A good camera with a good first lens will keep you from having to change out anything for a while. Hope this was not info overload, but I'm in love with this camera and just wanted to give my input.

 

Ashby

[Wulff 0]

The 40D is in fact a body I wouldnt hesitate to recomend to a first time buyer or even someone looking to upgrade from the entry line or even the 30D, having owned one myself for a couple of months, it is a whole lot of camera for its price point.

 

Its not a 1D though Ashby, not even close Its weather sealing really doesnt aount to much, I wouldnt trust it in a light drizzle whereas my 1DMKIIn has already been out in steady rain and snow. Its AF system while very good (imo) again is not in the same league as the 1Ds. Your comparing apples to oranges, the 1Ds hav two chips vs the entry/prosumer line sinle chips. So not only i the AF much faster, its more acurate and AI servo is likewise considerably more accurate in tracking,and so many more differences not the least of which is noise control at high ISOs.

 

ISO 1600 in the snow and very dull flat low contrast light

I sincerely doubt I could have gotten these kinds of shots with a 40D.

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the rest but teres a reason 1D bodies are 4 times the price (god help me and thank you for my understanding wife)

 

Nikons D300 is another kick *&$ body for the price point and Nikon hs some very sweet lenses themselves although being smaller and withou Canons manufactorin power, they dont have quite as many.

 

We as consumers are benefitting currently. The leaps in technology are only going to get better and drive prices down but again that speaks to the glass vs body debate. While bodies are getting better and better and new ones come out about every 18 months, there really hasnt been any "advancements" in lenses.

So buying good glass that last makes sense, given that in all probability you will upgrade your body at some point.

 

J

[Peterjay 0]

Just a word on weather-sealed camera bodies. On Michael Reichmnn's Antarctic trip last February, (50 photographers) the group spent 90 minutes shooting in what was described as a steady drizzle on one of the Falkland Islands. Six Canon 1D bodies failed during that period, along with three 5Ds. Three 1ds recovered after being dried out, three didn't, and were useless the rest of the trip. One 5D recovered, two didn't. No Nikons failed, probably due to the fact that only five people were using Nikon gear. The point being that weather-sealing does not make a camera waterproof. With the exception of cameras that are designed for underwater use, any camera can and will fail if it gets wet enough. Most cameras today are built tight enough to handle a fair degree of moisture, and weather-sealing is a big help in that regard, but it still pays to use some type of protection.

[Wulff 0]

A guy I shoot with occassionaly slipped and landed in some mud just few days after receiving his 1DMKIII. His 500 f4 lived, his body didnt. So no nothing is bullet proof but some have better weater sealing than others.

 

I would not have wanted to be his insurance agent and having to cover that before he'd realy even started paying the premiums

 

 

[Peterjay 0]

Glad to hear he had insurance. What's that, about $12K in his hands at once? I know a few guys who wouldn't think of driving their cars without collision coverage, but will regularly risk their photo gear investment to save a few bucks. I've never seriously damaged a camera, but with all the snow and ice shooting I do, it's just a matter of time. Insurance is a lot cheaper than new gear.

[Graham 0]

What a beautiful capture Wulff. This year I hope to buy a second DSLR and will likely go with the D300 instead of the D3. If money was not an issue I'd get the D3 and the 200-400 VR lens, but I can image hauling that weight around wishing I'd brought my D200 and 300 f/4.

 

I should also look into buying an insurance policy. I have a number of policies with State Farm including home, auto and contractor liability, and I have no idea if they do photography gear coverage?

 

Graham