I was going to wait a few years until 10+ MP DSLR's were available and affordable, but I don't think i can wait! Does anyone know of a Nikon D100 vs. Canon 10D thread I can refer to? I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, just to go back and review another thread if available...
Thanks,
JD Anderson
Personally I'm going with the 10D because I like the lens selection and like that I'll be able to use the lenses for film, and for a full-framed sensor some day if Canon ever makes an affordable body with a full-framed sensor. The new Nikon 4/3 system means that you can't use those lenses with film.
My first two will be the 50 f/1.4 and the 200 f/2.8L (the prime). I was looking at the 70-200 f/4L but I'll be using it for track and field, cross country, etc. and I can stand where I want and I know where my focal point will be ahead of time. I also figure I'll need the extra stop sometimes, as I live on the west coast where it's frequently dark and gloomy, and a lot of events I shoot are in the evening. I'd love to get the 70-200 f/2.8L but it's not currently in my budget.
Mainly, the wide and midrange L zooms are the reason to get the Canon - the 16-35 f/2.8L and the 24-70 f/2.8L are two really professional lenses that, when combined with a 70-200 f/2.8L, would give you a terrific range at a constant aperture with only three lenses.
My first two will be the 50 f/1.4 and the 200 f/2.8L (the prime). I was looking at the 70-200 f/4L but I'll be using it for track and field, cross country, etc. and I can stand where I want and I know where my focal point will be ahead of time. I also figure I'll need the extra stop sometimes, as I live on the west coast where it's frequently dark and gloomy, and a lot of events I shoot are in the evening. I'd love to get the 70-200 f/2.8L but it's not currently in my budget.
Mainly, the wide and midrange L zooms are the reason to get the Canon - the 16-35 f/2.8L and the 24-70 f/2.8L are two really professional lenses that, when combined with a 70-200 f/2.8L, would give you a terrific range at a constant aperture with only three lenses.
That's funny... I was also looking at the 1.4 50 and another prime telephoto. I like having zoom, but the image quality from a prime lens is hard to beat. Several primes over a good range, along with walking a little here and there will be fine.
Thanks everyone for the input. I am leaning to the Canon 10D, but I don't like that it does not have rear curtain sync for flash, and that it does not have a manual calibration for white balance. (correct me if I'm wrong). From various reviews, it appears that they are both excellent cameras. I have Nikon film SLR's, but my lenses are lower end Tamron and basic Nikkor that I'm not impressed with.
That 200 f/2.8L II USM is supposed to be absolutely dynamite...razor sharp and very quick USM, and at $650ish a great value. Every review I've read about it is a rave. With the 10D it's essentially a 320mm lens at f/2.8, but as it's a crop and not a magnification it retains the optical qualities of the 200 in that it doesn't flatten facial features like a 300 on a film camera would.
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
My first two will be the 50 f/1.4 and the 200 f/2.8L (the prime). I was looking at the 70-200 f/4L but I'll be using it for track and field, cross country, etc. and I can stand where I want and I know where my focal point will be ahead of time. I also figure I'll need the extra stop sometimes, as I live on the west coast where it's frequently dark and gloomy, and a lot of events I shoot are in the evening. I'd love to get the 70-200 f/2.8L but it's not currently in my budget.
Mainly, the wide and midrange L zooms are the reason to get the Canon - the 16-35 f/2.8L and the 24-70 f/2.8L are two really professional lenses that, when combined with a 70-200 f/2.8L, would give you a terrific range at a constant aperture with only three lenses.
That's funny... I was also looking at the 1.4 50 and another prime telephoto. I like having zoom, but the image quality from a prime lens is hard to beat. Several primes over a good range, along with walking a little here and there will be fine.
Thanks everyone for the input. I am leaning to the Canon 10D, but I don't like that it does not have rear curtain sync for flash, and that it does not have a manual calibration for white balance. (correct me if I'm wrong). From various reviews, it appears that they are both excellent cameras. I have Nikon film SLR's, but my lenses are lower end Tamron and basic Nikkor that I'm not impressed with.
Does anyone have any experience with Canon's macro lenses? I love 'prosumer' digital cameras with a great Macro mode. With SLR, macros are a little more involved.
OK, I fixed it... I've never heard of Nick Cave... I know all the 80's, and 90's bands. Now I have three little kids and I know nothing of current culture! LOL
Does anyone have any experience with Canon's macro lenses? I love 'prosumer' digital cameras with a great Macro mode. With SLR, macros are a little more involved.
I have only had mine about a week (canon 100mm macro)but I really like it. The 180mmL is really the one to go with but it is hard to justify that kind of cash.
With the prime SLR lenses (which can all produce exceptional background blur in all but the most extreme wide-angle shots) it's more the flattening effect of a lens as the focal length gets longer which determines whether or not it's a good lens for portraits. A 600mm lens would give a very two-dimensional look to a person's face, as the distances are quite compressed. A shorter focal length has a wider perspective, and as in the 100mm portrait, the facial features still have a very three-dimensional depth.
Thanks everyone for the input. I am leaning to the Canon 10D, but I don't like that it does not have rear curtain sync for flash, and that it does not have a manual calibration for white balance. (correct me if I'm wrong).
Right...thanks for the link. Like I said, the 200mm is still a 200m with the center cropped out. The field of view is different but the magnification remains the same.
