I all honesty, the tenth of a frame slower is negligible really. The fact that you can record so many shots in the burstrate is due to the newer technology of the DIGIC 4 CMOS. It runs cooler, thus the ability for them to get more pixels on a crop body CMOS. You said you didn't want to upgrade in a year and you have the ability to get the newer technology now, so why not take advantage. The cost difference (about 150) isn't substantial enough to where you could afford another lens or something to benefit you getting the older technology. So might as well capitalize on the opportunity to get the most current. Will slow down your upgrade process.

As Waijai and I "discussed" for over an hour today at work, (I still don't know if we came to an agreement.. LOL) The increased number of pixels will aide in a more realistic color reproduced image. You have more pixels to record color information, thus a nicer image, and nicer bokeh as well.

The HD movie is just a bonus.. It's nice to be able to switch to video mode while the cam is in your hand and have it all in one device.. Just like some people don't use live mode because they've never tried it or don't have it available, same w/ HD movie capture capability.

I have a 75-300mm telephoto zoom lens that I use for my action shots and I LOVE it.. In good light, I've shot w/ it rather than the 70-200L f2.0 Pro lens because of the extended reach.. That extra 100mm makes a HUGE difference. I've covered Ranger games and was able to fill the frame w/ a player's face from the dugout area.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...6&modelid=7444

Because it's considered "slower" glass f4-5.6 (4 at the 75mm end, and as you increase the focal length toward 300mm the minimum aperture gets closer to the 5.6 as the least you can select) it's actually not an expensive lens. This was one of the first lenses I purchased years ago, and I still have it.

I had a Canon 28-135 IS lens and ended up selling it because I got good with hand holding lenses. There's a HUGE price difference in a lens that's IS and one that isn't for the same focal length.. I've shot plenty of candle lit birthday shots hand held because I was able to access a fast enough shutter speed w/ that 2.8 lens. Cameras now days have noise reduction built in, so if you're not "too" picky, you won't see noticeable noise until around ISO 800. The closer you get to the end of a focal range on a lens, the more likely you're going to have camera shake w/ lower shutterspeeds. If you'd feel more comfortable w/ an IS lens, by all means get it, because it DOES work. I have just been shooting for a while and it's not necessary, I can't justify the cost difference and I'd probably leave it off anyway.

 

Thanks for the feedback Tony, you make some very good points. I am also intrigued by the thought of having a kit lens 18-55, a fast midrange of 28-75 f/2.8, and a loooong telephoto in the 75-300 with no gaps in between. As for the IS lens, I guess I will have to compare numbers.

I'm also usually the first person to jump at the newer technology, but nowadays I feel like I need more than just a newer number (Digic 3 vs. Digic 4) to really convince me it's better I agree the technology is newer, probably runs cooler due to smaller transistor size (just like every iteration of computer cpu), however I may have to disagree on the whole megapixel thing...

If you follow Nikons at all you will know Ken Rockwell, he has a great write up on the "mega pixel myth" that is definitely worth a read: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

 

Spend the gift card on the XSi ... what kit lens does it come with? I think the 28-135 is a good kit lens, as well as the 18-55. I own both. I've yet to really invest in higher quality glass at this point, but it's a consideration in the near future.

What exactly will you be shooting Jon?

 

I'm still on the fence between the 2 canon's but still haven't completely decided against the Nikon either. Some definite advantages that the T1i has is the 3" VGA screen (920k pixes) vs. the 3" QVGA screen (230k pixels) of the XSi. The HD movie mode sounds cool and I would probably use it and hook it up to my projector via HDMI although until blu-ray burners and media become affordable, I would have to continue to use the camera as a HD player as well. I think this would soon be replaced by an actual HD camcorder better suited for the task so not a big deal.

Both Canon's and the Nikon come with a 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 image stabilized lens which would probably suit me fine for a wide angle lens. Won't be the greatest for low light or super fast action but should suffice to start.

Things I would be shooting include:
Portraits of family/friends (probably posed most of the time)
Kids playing (in a pool, backyard, inside, etc)
Some sports (baseball, basketball, golf)
Friends weddings
Cars (stationary and in motion)
Landscapes (we usually go to a National Park every year)
Nature (insects, plant life, etc)

 

When I was in the same spot as you when I was looking into cameras I went out and played with all the contenders.

It really ended up coming down to which one was most comfortable.

Dont forget that YOU are the one who will make the image great, the camera is only a tool to make your job easier. All of the ones you are looking at would be an excellent choice. The camera taht I shoot with has the same image sensor as the D40 and I can get poster size prints with it. So you will get excellent quality from anything you choose.

If it were me of course I would choose the Nikon, but at the end of the day it really all depends on which one is going to work best for you. Any of the choices that you pick will be a good decision.

 

There are a couple of people at work that know alot about them (Best Buy in Hurst). Too bad you have those gift cards, I could have hooked you up with something. Go in and talk to Codee or Miguel, they have their own photography business so they know about the DSLRs

 

Just an idea of the flexibility you could get w/ the lens choices.. The lenses I'd use in these situations..

Portraits of family/friends (probably posed most of the time) - 28-75mm 2.8 - gives you the ability to get a decent length from your subjects

Kids playing (in a pool, backyard, inside, etc) - 28-75mm 2.8 - can get sharp really nice blurred bokeh shots w/ this wide open and fast shutter speeds to freeze the action

Some sports (baseball, basketball, golf) - 75-300mm 4-5.6 - Normally would have good lighting, so you should be just fine and would be able to really fill the frame w/ the subject

Friends weddings - 28-75mm 2.8 - I'd also invest in a flash if I were shooting a wedding to get really sharp shots.. However, increasing the ISO would be fine if you don't mind the noise. The lower aperture lens will allow you to minimize the amount you have to raise the ISO and enable to you still get faster shutter speeds.

Cars (stationary and in motion) - 18-55mm - this is the widest lens I own as far as yet, and I've gotten some pretty decent shots with mine.. You can also use the 28-75mm 2.8 (as I have) it just requires you to get a little further from your subject if you're going for a wider shot. I love it's ability to open up creative shots in low light w/ dramatic shadows..

Landscapes (we usually go to a National Park every year) - to truly get some great landscape shots, you'd probably want to invest in the 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 EF-S, or you'll be stitching your 18-55 shots for panaramics, not that this is complex if you have the software to allow it.
10-22mm 3.5-4.5

Nature (insects, plant life, etc) - To get really pro looking shots you'll want to get a macro lens. These lenses allow you to get REALLY close to your subject and they still be able to focus needle sharp. Unless a lens is specially made to do this, it requires a minimum distance to focus properly. I have the 50mm 2.4 macro (also a GREAT portrait lens) If you want to be a bit farther from your subject then you might want to look at the 100mm prime macro lens. I have that one as well..

50mm 2.4 macro

100mm 2.8 macro

 

Thanks again Tony. It sounds like my first lens might be something like that f2.8 28-75mm and I probably wouldn't want to go back to the 18-55 kit lens unless I really need the wide angle.

That 10-22mm super wide angle lens is sweet but dayum that is more than the body+kit lens alone! I figure if I pick this one up I would at least sell the 18-55 kit lens to recoup a little of the cost.

I know some friends that do love the prime lenses but that would probably be the last thing I buy.

The 75-300 would definitely be on the list. For starters, I might just be looking at the kit lens 18-55 and then picking up a 55-200 IS (VR if I go Nikon) so I have both ends of the spectrum covered. I'm sure there will continue to be some really awesome glass to come out.

 

That's exactly what I do.. I use my 28-75mm 2.8, 80-90% of the time (the perfect focal range) and I use my 18-55mm as a "specialty" lens when I'm shooting cars for the most part..

Yeah, that 10-22mm (Equivalent to a 16-35mm) is their signature wideangle lens for crop bodies, so any camer w/ a magnification factor (anything other than a 1D or 5D, 90% of their line basically) must use this lens as a TRUE wideangle. So that's how they justify the price, and it's a fairly new lens to the line as well. Landscape photographers have hailed this as a premier lens saying it can produce "L" quality shots.

Canon, to satisfy their "consumer" lines are really investing in the EF-S line (which doesn't work for the Pro model cameras 1d and 5d). The main line (black bodies), and the pro, "L" (white bodies) lines don't really get new lenses added to their arsenal all that often. I actually think that's a good thing. You know that the lens you purchase is an investment that will last a long time. That's why they're so initially expensive I assume.

In all actuality, the 10-22mm lens isn't really that expensive in comparison to the rest of the Canon line.. For example, if you were to get the Canon equivalent to the Tamron 28-75 2.8, the cost is doubled..

Canon 24-70mm 2.8L

I was looking for a third party equivalent (Sigma or Tamron) to the 10-22mm, and there is none that covers the same focal length that I could find.. That also might be why the price is a bit exorbitant...

Yeah I went for the prime lenses after I got the zooms that I wanted.. I also got them used from people just offloading them.. I'd say not to "sleep" on used equipment because most photographers are VERY careful with their equipment and used is just as good as new w/ a lower pricetag.. I just bought 550ex flash from a forum sale last week.

 

BeerViper,

If I were you, I would get the Rebel T1i/500D over the XSi and the Nikon equivalent. Kit lens (18-55 mm IS) are good to have but image quality and build are average. You cannot have everything in a single lens, there are sacrifices. I think the above comments are very good and you should have enough information to decide on a dSLR.

Good Luck!

I currently own a T1i with a Tamron 18-270 mm VR lens

 

So when are you making your move Beer? I'm getting my 7D and Sigma 70-200 f2.8 this week. I can't wait.

 

Well I had made a decision over the weekend after spending about 90 minutes at Best Buy using the Nikon D5000 and Canon Rebel T1i side-by-side. After reading all the reviews and websites I just couldn't make a decision...

At first I thought the Canon was more comfortable to hold and to use but it became apparent after flipping back and forth to the Nikon several times that the Nikon was more user friendly to me.

I thought that the ability to do just about everything right-handed on the Canon would be an advantage, but IMHO on a DSLR this is not really an advantage. I realized that with the Nikon buttons on the left of the screen and the 4-way controller on the right, I was able to more quickly navigate through pictures (zoom in, zoom out, scroll around), change settings (like WB, ISO, quality, etc) with less button pushes and a more intuitive interface.

I never would have realized any of this without using both camera's side-by-side for that long (without getting kicked out of Best Buy ).

Here are a few things that the Canon does have that I will miss:
- HQ 920k pixel screen
- DOF preview
- Ability to connect to a PC and control the camera (prob only use it a couple times though)

And here are some of the things that I won't miss on the T1i
- Having to pop up the flash and have it strobe as an AF assist lamp
- Small red dots in the viewfinder that indicate AF points that disappear while still holding a half-shutter
- Having to press a separate button (other than the shutter release) to focus in Live View


With all of these things considered ... I have chosen to go with the Nikon (sorry Canon fans). I went to go order it at Staples this weekend ... OUT OF STOCK Although I just checked their website and it appears they are back in stock!

I did check out that 7D at Best Buy, thing is insane but well out of my [wife's allowable] price range!

I'm looking forward to picking up a 55-200mm VR lens and then probably a f1.8 prime lens for some nice shots with heavy bokeh and low light!

 

WOO HOO!!!!


Great Choice! You are going to love it.

May I recommend to stay away from the 55-200..

I have the 55-200 non VR lens and the 70-300VR

The 70-300 is MUCH better and sharper than the 55-200, my advise is to spend the few extra bucks on the better lens.

If you would like we can meet up one weekend and you can try it out. I also have a 50mm f1.8 you can take for a test drive too.

 

Thanks for the offer Dave, I will definitely take you up on that!

My buddy with the Nikon D90 has the 18-200mm VR lens and after using that for an afternoon, I think I might just save up and pick up that lens and then not have to worry about swapping lenses so much. I would be losing the extra tele range of the 300 but I think for what I will want to use it for, I will be better suited with the 18-200VR that will stay on the body almost all the time.

There's a guy selling the 18-200VR on craigslist right now for $650 which is about $200 off retail which is tempting ... that is until I try to explain to the wife that I want to buy a lens that [new] costs more than the D5000 body and 18-55 kit lens together!

[edit] The obligatory Ken Rockwell lens review: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

 

Yea that is an AMAZING lens.

I would advise getting used to the gear that you have right now. Your thoughts on what lens you want/need might change a bit after getting used to the camera. You will see what you could use after a few hundred shots.

I personally use the following lenses (in this order)

Tokina 12-24
Nikon 18-55VR
Nikon 70-300VR
Nikon 50mm f1.8

As you can see I don't have any 2.8 glass in my stable and still am able to get incredible pictures in any situation (yes even shooting weddings).
Just like Ken Rockwell says, its not the camera that gets the great image, its the person using it.

The 18-55VR is a VERY nice lens and I see no reason for you to have to upgrade that for a long time. The 18-200VR however would be what I would upgrade to if that ever happened. It is for sure one of the best lenses in Nikon's lineup.

Congrats on your purchase and get out there and start shooting! If you ever need any help or have any questions don't hesitate to ask.