StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've been asked to recommend a great camera for my dad again, and wanted to get some feedback from the fine photography & Camera experts in this forum.
He wants the Best non professional (That is, Semi-Pro) camera out there (That is, very good, but we don't need a D3 or something ridiculous, price is a factor), from which I recommended the Canon EOS40D or the Nikon D300. (I don't know about the Alpha700, and the E520 hasn't been released yet).
It'll probably be bought in Europe due to the insane prices here, so, is the D300 worth the extra price and weight (It's not for studio use, but for trips and the like), and what would be a good all-round lenses for either of them? (The Wider the range, the better, I like landscape photos, but don't want to carry 2 lenses around with me for when I see a bird or the like).

I've heard that the Canon 17-85mm lense has some image colour issues, although it's focal range is fantastic for my purposes (And it's not too pricey, and stabilized). As for Nikon, no idea.
Thanks. (Also, if anyone knows a good photography shop near Paris, it would be appreciated) .
(And no, the camera isn't for me, it's for him. I'll just be using it the rest of the time. Same as I do now with our old E300 )

How about the D80, it's almost a D200 and smaller/lighter. Or you absolutely needing latest generation models? Probably months or a year away for the D80 replacement. I have experience with Nikon's 18-135mm and the 70-200mm with VR. What you said about catching the occasion bird would probably say the 70-200.

The EOS40D is a good camera certainly, although you might want to look at the new EOS450D, which is cheaper and has a similar feature set (albeit using SecureDigital cards instead of CompactFlash).

As for lenses, the 17-85's a good one. Colour is actually pretty decent on that lens, the major issue is actually how distorted the images look when it's zoomed out fully. However, if you're looking for a wide zoom range (without going for something ridiculous like the Canon 28-300L), you need to look outside of Canon's lenses. Sigma do a good one, with an 18-200mm range and an image stabilizer. Image quality isn't great on that lens, but for convenience it's hard to beat.

Can't advise you on the D300, since I unfortunately don't know a lot about Nikon's stuff (although that Sigma lens is available for Nikons as well).

DaveJB wrote:The EOS40D is a good camera certainly, although you might want to look at the new EOS450D, which is cheaper and has a similar feature set (albeit using SecureDigital cards instead of CompactFlash).

As for lenses, the 17-85's a good one. Colour is actually pretty decent on that lens, the major issue is actually how distorted the images look when it's zoomed out fully.

Wide angle is the most important thing for me, so that's a big problem. Landscapes/natures shots will be the no1 use for this, followed by family/group shots (A distant second/third).

However, if you're looking for a wide zoom range (without going for something ridiculous like the Canon 28-300L), you need to look outside of Canon's lenses. Sigma do a good one, with an 18-200mm range and an image stabilizer. Image quality isn't great on that lens, but for convenience it's hard to beat.

The problem is getting it outside of Europe/the US. I;ll be asking my mom to pick it up in Paris, but no idea where there are any decent camera shops there. 18-200 is a fantastic range...

Can't advise you on the D300, since I unfortunately don't know a lot about Nikon's stuff (although that Sigma lens is available for Nikons as well).

I think I've decided against the D300. It's very heavy, and lacks "Automated" (landscape, macro, etc') settings that help save time for a lazy, framework modifying (not setting) sod like me. Er, or my dad.

DEATH wrote:Wide angle is the most important thing for me, so that's a big problem. Landscapes/natures shots will be the no1 use for this, followed by family/group shots (A distant second/third).

Here's a reviewof the Canon 17-85mm, that shows the kind of pictures you get. The distortion level isn't bad per se, but it does tend to produce things like curved horizons and will likely be noticeable in any shot where there's buildings close by. Unfortunately, distortions are something that goes with the territory on wide-angle zooms (although it does seem to be worse than usual on the 17-85... for comparison, here's a review of the 18-200 lens I was talking about).

The problem is getting it outside of Europe/the US. I;ll be asking my mom to pick it up in Paris, but no idea where there are any decent camera shops there. 18-200 is a fantastic range...

I should imagine there will be some decent camera shops in Paris, although I haven't been there for about five years so I can't really say. That Sigma lens has been about for over a year though, so I should be easy enough to come by.

DaveJB wrote:

DEATH wrote:Wide angle is the most important thing for me, so that's a big problem. Landscapes/natures shots will be the no1 use for this, followed by family/group shots (A distant second/third).

Here's a reviewof the Canon 17-85mm, that shows the kind of pictures you get. The distortion level isn't bad per se, but it does tend to produce things like curved horizons and will likely be noticeable in any shot where there's buildings close by. Unfortunately, distortions are something that goes with the territory on wide-angle zooms (although it does seem to be worse than usual on the 17-85... for comparison, here's a review of the 18-200 lens I was talking about).

The problem is getting it outside of Europe/the US. I;ll be asking my mom to pick it up in Paris, but no idea where there are any decent camera shops there. 18-200 is a fantastic range...

I should imagine there will be some decent camera shops in Paris, although I haven't been there for about five years so I can't really say. That Sigma lens has been about for over a year though, so I should be easy enough to come by.

The 18-200 looks fantastic, but it's pretty fucking expensive. Do you have anything a bit cheaper to recommend? a range up up to 80-120 mm at peak zoom is fine as well.

Are you looking at the price in the review? Because it's gone down since then... about £220 for the standard version and £320 for the one with the image stabilizer.

It'd help if I knew what your price range was, and how essential the telephoto capability is. For what you need, you might be able to get away with just the standard 18-55 w/image stabilizer that comes with the 450D.

Price range - Up to 300 pounds I think (I may end up ordering via Amazon.uk and asking someone to ship it here).
Telephoto capacity is not that important, just useful - I want a Walk-around lense - light, as small as possible, and with built in Stabilization. A wide range is essential (35mm film equilevent minimum, and less would be much nicer).

I want a lense that will be the only thing needed for the camera, not a half dozen lenses .

I've decided on the Canon, and I've been looking at the Sigma lenses for it, the 18-125mm Lense, or the 18-200mm lense.
The cost is the same, but the 18-125 lense is considerably lighter and more compact, my dad was leery about the size of the 200mm lense.
I can't find ANY reviews on the 18-125 lens though... Has anyone here ever used it?

There's a review of it here. Seems decent enough, but it lacks stabilisation.

If your father has serious issues with the size of the 18-200, I'd say that brings us back to the Canon 17-85. It's the standard kit lens with the 40D and quite commonly offered with the 400D (and 450D I'm guessing), so your best bet is probably to have someone negotiate a good deal with a shop for such a combination, then have them ship it to you. If you avoid taking it any lower than 20mm (that's the same as 32mm on a film camera) in shots where the distortion would be really noticeable, and just save the 17-20 range for really wide shots with nothing in the foreground, you'll probably do fine.

DaveJB wrote:There's a review of it here. Seems decent enough, but it lacks stabilisation.

If your father has serious issues with the size of the 18-200, I'd say that brings us back to the Canon 17-85. It's the standard kit lens with the 40D and quite commonly offered with the 400D (and 450D I'm guessing), so your best bet is probably to have someone negotiate a good deal with a shop for such a combination, then have them ship it to you. If you avoid taking it any lower than 20mm (that's the same as 32mm on a film camera) in shots where the distortion would be really noticeable, and just save the 17-20 range for really wide shots with nothing in the foreground, you'll probably do fine.

Apparently there's a new version coming out with OS.
A lens where you need to remember not to use it with the focal length twisted to one end isn't an option, my dad won't remember that for shit.
I'm not sure whether the 18-200mm will be too much, I just can't test or feel it for myself. Lack of decent camera shops suck .

Okay, I looked into the 18-125, and it seems like it's only just starting to trickle out now, so it'll probably be hard to get hold of for the next few weeks/months (meaning that user reviews aren't likely to start arriving for that long).

Is there anywhere at all near you that carries D-SLRs, any electronics stores or anything? You could go down there and ask to try a 4x0D/17-85 combo for a few minutes and see whether the distortion level really bothers you or your father. Like I said, it's not so severe that the 17-20 area is unusable, it just might make some shots look a bit funny, mainly ones with buildings at either side of the picture. You might also want to try the 18-55 with image stabiliser, which actually doesn't show that much distortion at the wider and produces quite good pictures (but for the love of god, don't go near the 18-55 without image stabiliser, which sucks monkey balls).

DaveJB wrote:Okay, I looked into the 18-125, and it seems like it's only just starting to trickle out now, so it'll probably be hard to get hold of for the next few weeks/months (meaning that user reviews aren't likely to start arriving for that long).

Is there anywhere at all near you that carries D-SLRs, any electronics stores or anything?

Nothing with a 40D, and prices here are Painful. I've fiddled with a 40D briefly, inside a house, without seeing the images on screen, so I have no idea whether the distortion would bother me or not...

You might also want to try the 18-55 with image stabiliser, which actually doesn't show that much distortion at the wider and produces quite good pictures (but for the love of god, don't go near the 18-55 without image stabiliser, which sucks monkey balls).

It's an option, but I don't like having such a tiny range. I don't plan on carying 2 lenses with me on trips or hikes...

Well, there's not really a lot more I can say. The 17-85 bundled with the 40D is the cheapest option, but you'd be gambling on the wide-end distortions not being too severe. With buying just the camera body and a Sigma lens, the 18-200 is probably the best all-round option, but it's also the biggest and heaviest. The 18-125 might be the ideal one, but it's difficult to get ahold of.

Therefore, I recommend this. Wait a few weeks, and see if availability of the 18-125 improves. In the meantime, do some quick research into the other two lenses, read reviews of them and see what kind of output they produce, and decide whether you'd be satisfied with it. If the 18-125 gets good reviews when it starts arriving in quantity, go with it. If it still isn't showing up or turns out to have some deal-breaking problems, decide which of the other two is the lesser of two evils, and go with that one.

The EOS 40D is a fine camera and has a better autofocus system than the consumer line. That said, the 450D is quite capable of taking fine pictures.

As for lenses, I prefer nice, fast ones. If it's in his budget, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM is a very nice lens. Image-stabilization, fast-glass and USM is a great combination. If not, Tamron's 17-50/2.8 is about half the price, but no USM or IS.

For inexpensive walkarounds, the Tamron 18-250/3.5-6.3 is good option, especially if your father is willing to buy a Pentax DSLR with built-in image stabilization.

The last option might be to go prime-only: the Sigma 30/1.4 is a pretty decent lens if you get a good sample and you can do all sorts of indoor photography without flash (especially on an IS body). The usual 50/1.4s are also fine lenses as well.