First decent D-SLR: Canon EOS 450d or Nikon D90?

That would be great tfboy - A900 also has an awesome in-body focus motor so I'd expect AF to match yours on the centre point. Could you count the screw revolutions as you turn the AF ring from infinite to closest focus? Always a good indicator.

A brick wall shot or 2 would be awesome - I'd love to see how much the sharpness reaches into the corners. The next step up from the KM/Tamron/Sigma 17-35s for Minolta users is the Minolta 17-35 3.5 G, which is more like 500quid used, and if we want new then it's the best part of 1000 for a Zeiss 16-35 2.8... No way I can afford the premium Zeiss zooms in the 16-35 & 24-70 range - so I'd love to see if the budget offering can cut it.

Colmo - I live in China - I think the cost of importing the beercan would outweigh the cheap price :P I've also had 2 in the past and sold them both - just not that big a fan. That one's all yours.

This morning I have been offered a Nikon D90 with kit lens (18-105mm VR) for £708, delivered next day. That seems like an offer that is too good to resist.

Thats a good deal, the kit lens is a resonable walk about lens. If you do go for it get the sandisk extreme II 30 MB/s card. It will help keep you fps resonable, especially useful for RAW. have to say that I am trying to resist until next year.

go into your local camera shop, try the 2 cameras out - don't listen to the waffle the guy behind the counter will give you

see if they have a 28-75 in stock and ask to use that with the 450 dont forget to stop down to f2.8
then try the 18-105 on the 90

Also worth taking a memory card with you if youve one that fits, then you can have a play with the photos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YorkieBen

lol hands off that beercan, I've been trying to get through to mifsuds the last couple of days and everytime I ring they don't seem to pick up. If I manage to get through its mine :D

---

I don't need any more beercans, my own is an immaculate copy - wonderful bokeh, very sharp.

They had a 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 also listed - it's optically close to the beercan, and crucially weighs a lot less! Not a bad second option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brammers

That would be great tfboy - A900 also has an awesome in-body focus motor so I'd expect AF to match yours on the centre point. Could you count the screw revolutions as you turn the AF ring from infinite to closest focus? Always a good indicator.

A brick wall shot or 2 would be awesome - I'd love to see how much the sharpness reaches into the corners. The next step up from the KM/Tamron/Sigma 17-35s for Minolta users is the Minolta 17-35 3.5 G, which is more like 500quid used, and if we want new then it's the best part of 1000 for a Zeiss 16-35 2.8... No way I can afford the premium Zeiss zooms in the 16-35 & 24-70 range - so I'd love to see if the budget offering can cut it.

---

OK, it's about 4 complete turns of the screw from shortest focus distance (approx 30cm) to infinity. FYI, the focus ring is about a quarter turn for the full range, so nice and easy to go manual.

The zoom ring is slightly less than a 1/4 turn, probably about 60 degrees.

Will try and take some boring bricks assuming it doesn't chuck it down with rain as it did today. Or it may be white-painted breeze blocks from inside instead!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brammers

tfboy - can you give some observations on that 17-35 on full frame? I've found a KM version for the same price as yours - I'm wondering about it quite strongly... The thing is I like to print big - sizes in meters rather than CM, so often for a landscape I'd stitch it at 50mm instead of going wide on a single frame, even with 24mp...

---

You'll find full-size A900 images shot on a 17-35mm Konica Minolta lens (same optical formula as the Tamron) linked to this article (and others by the same author):

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/1...-an-alpha-900/

Yeah, I've read that colmo, but unfortunately I'm not impressed.

David Kilpatrick is not my favourite journalist, although he's regarded as something of a Sony equivalent to Thom. He does do some good stuff, but really he just speaks very loudly and slowly while stating the obvious, his photography is nothing special (although that's not really neccesary to be a journalist) and he makes some huge blunders - remember when he took a handheld shot with a pre-production Zeiss 16-35 through a window at f8 and put it on the net full size? Low and behold the Canon crew lept upon it and claimed the it was rubbish, ignoring the fact that it was pre-production... Or the a900 being 1.3x crop factor with a tiny mirror to accomodate AS? Or the LCD light button being used to activate liveview mode? :D

A much better 'Thom' is kiklop imo - he keeps a lot quieter and his posts carry a lot more weight becaues of this.

Anyway, the reason for that little rant is because I don't think his samples with the 17-35 are very good - overly stopped down allowing diffraction to come in and it doesn't look like he's using a tripod for a lot of them. On the boat one you can just about find the plane of focus if you look in the water on the RHS, but the whole image is lacking the crispness I get from my shots.

I would like to see his lighthouse shot full size though - that's a lovely shot and looks really well done technically. It's the KM version I've got my eye on - will be nice to keep a 'Minolta' lens in the lineup after I throw out 3 in this kit reshuffle.

Firstly, a big thanks to fellow Hexites for the advice on here. There truly is no substitute for physically handling a camera. I have spent a few days trawling through High Street stores to check out some cameras. I took my own SD card along and managed to get a few pics that I could examine on my LCD monitor at home.

A relative of mine owns a Nikon D80 and has several lenses and flashguns. That factored a lot in my ultimate decision. I eventually purchased a Nikon D90 with kit lens (18-105mm). I figured that a good stock lens would allow me to become familiar with the capabilities of the camera and then I can decide on specific upgrade lenses and flashguns.

The Nikon D90 + kit lens is a fairly substantial camera and not very light compared with the Canon EOS 450D + kit lens. The photgraphs it can take are very, very good for a kit lens. The pictures produced by the Canon EOS 450D were comparable in quality to my untrained eye. It was the handling that won it for me in the end.

A little late, I know, but I just got this in a mailshot:

Samsung Digital SLR Camera Kit - GX-20 with 18-55 and 50-200 Zoom Lenses - #CLEARANCE - £539.99

If I was buying a new system right now, I'd be very tempted.

seems decent as long as the Samsung/Pentax fits your needs.
You can also get the Pentax K20D with kit 18-55mm for £470 after cashback if you don't need the 55-200mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BUFF

seems decent as long as the Samsung/Pentax fits your needs.
You can also get the Pentax K20D with kit 18-55mm for £470 after cashback if you don't need the 55-200mm.

---

You mean this? £539.99 - £100 cashback = £439.99

http://www.parkcameras.com/8666/Pentax-K20D.html

That's an awesome deal! It places it around £140 more than the Sony A350, and is a MUCH better camera in terms of build, with a top-notch CMOS sensor (better high ISO for the same resolution) and proper pentaprism viewfinder.

that's body only & afaik the Pentax cashback only applies to body & kit lens bundle http://www.pentax.co.uk/en/getDCMSFi...a273ca5f77b59a.
great build quality but people looking for top notch AF & higher fps should look elsewhere (e.g. Canon 40D, Nikon D90, Sony A700).

D'oh! This is the link I should have given: Pentax K20D + 18-55mm II

Agreed on the limitations of this camera - I suspect landscape and macro shooters are the target market. It's a polar opposite to the 40D in particular; 40D has modest resolution, fast AF and, what, 6 fps? K20D/GX-20 has high resolution, weak AF (by midrange standards) and 3 fps.

Edit: Weather sealing on the Pentaxes/Samsungs is supposed to be top-notch too - I believe there are videos of brave folks out there running them under a tap....

I am in the same situation as Taz in the market for a first DSLR camera. I have no experience what so ever using a DSLR and I can tell from reading all the forum posts here that there is allot more to it than I realized.

I live in Thailand and have currently taken over 70,000 photos in the past couple of years using pocket cameras such as a Sony DSC-T100

The intent was to post the photos on a hobby website I have visualthailand dot com

I have started to become a little more serious with photography as I am exposed to many cool things in and around Thailand.

I realize the limitations with using a pocket digital cam for such things as wide angle and telephoto.

Using Photoshop (in my own opinion), you can make some excellent photos even with a pocket digital camera. I may be all wrong here as I have nothing to judge the quality of a photo on nor do I have any idea what to look for a in a photo if it is quality or not?

My goal is to buy a DSLR and actually learn how to become a real photographer so I appreciate it if during the course of this forum that you can bear with my silly questions and help me to learn all that most of you already know.

I have looked at the Canon 50D and the Nikon D90 and recently saw something about an Olympus E30 coming in January 2009. I see the Canon 450D is also a choice?

The problem with being so new is all of the reviews you can find, whether dpreview.com or other credible sites give mixed opinions and use terms that I have no idea are very important or useful when looking for a camera.

I basically am outdoors taking photos of scenery, nature, flowers, waterfalls, animals and maybe people here and there.

I am also interested in macro as there are always some interested things to see in a nice macro photo.

I want a camera I can grow into so I am being cautious with this first purchase.

I also want to buy a nice telephoto for long range shots, preferably up to 600 mm or what ever is equivalent to that.

I would also like a nice wide angle for scenic shots

and maybe a macro

I saw on one of Bobsters post's he listed all kinds of lenses with all kinds of numbers that do not correlate to anything with my limited knowledge?

I am assuming that to be a photographer, you have to carry around all the different lenses you would need in the course of a day of shooting?

One good all around lense that could wide angle and zoom outdoors would be nice if they make such a thing as well? Meaning taking a photo of an animal that may be close and the same time a waterfall that may be far away?

Right now I am clueless as I am sure any DSLR is way above my capabilities, but I would like to hear recommendations on what I can grow into as I have plenty of time and I am serious about learning all this?

I would also like to know how much better can the image quality be if you use a DSLR like a 50D or D90 versus a pocket digital camera like a Sony T100 or T700?

I take photos for the web but in the future I would like to make a photo book and also print some photos up to poster size if that is possible.

I hope you can all have some patience with my questions as I try to get rolling into serious photography

Thank you