Paralysis by analysis

[TheSnowman]

I apoligize for the length of this post but I wanted to provide as much information/background as possible. Well I have spent quite a bit of time here on these forums, and reading reviews on this site, in addition to, reading reviews and forums on just about every camera and photography site I get in my google search results. Well I always feel the more reseach the more comfortable making a smart decision on a purchase.

Well now I have paralysis by analysis in that I feel lost and I do not know where to turn in my first purchase of a DSLR. I have read so much that all of the reviews and camers now sound the same and nothing stands out to me (at least in my budget). Right now a d90 sounds like a T3 which sounds like a b52... I used to shoot with my Canon 35mm 10-15 years ago and enjoyed photography, won some minor contests and actually had some peopl buy a couple photos from me. Then I got married and had 2 boys and due to time and money I got away from the camera.

I have a point and shoot I had been using but now that the kids are older I am getting the bug again. Here is what I want out of a camera along with budget and hopefully everyone will provide me with some great advice to narrow my choices and kickstart my decision making:

-I am an avid outdoorsman and I would like to shot various nature/wildlife subjects including birds, animals/wildlife, landscapes/mountains/sky/sunsets, water/lakes/beaches and golf courses. I have a few friends who write outdoors articles and books and we have talked about utilizing some of my photos in their projects do image quality has to be high.

-I travel pretty extensively for work and I would also like to shoot architecture, streetscapes, historical attractions.

-Sports photography. I love sports and my kids participate in sports and we take in many football, hockey, baseball and soccer games that I would love to try and shoot.

-Microphotography. Kind of goes with the outdoors/nature photography and would like to shoot some flowers/plants, butterflies, etc.

Here is what I am thinking about budget and a couple of cameras that sounded like top contenders, but I am so confused at this point they may not be the way to go:

-The Canon 7D is at the top end of my budget range. It seems like it would definately do everything I would need it to and more. Speed is there along with durability. It is at the top end of my range and in purchasing the body only I will have little budget left to purchase more than 1 maybe 2 lensses to get me started. I see this as an investment that will benefit me now, but also allow me to add lenses, etc. and produce great shots for quite a while before I may need to upgrade.

-I had also seen the Nikon D7000 that is definately in my budget (I have seen it approximately $500 less that the 7D) so it leaves more room to buy at least 2 if not 3 lenses. I have read that the D7000 is a good camera and provides good quality photos at a wide variety of lighting conditions (even low light). This is good as shooting in the woods, or under heavy cloud cover will require low light flexibility. One worry I have is the speed as the specs say it shoots up to 6fps which is pretty good, but the burst is only 8-9 frames and then the reviews says it slows to a crawl and only shoots 1-2 fps.

-Then I think that I may want to drop down a bit on the body (to like a 3ti) and spend more money on good quality lenses and be able to purchase 4-6 different lenses to cover a wide variiety of photography opportunities.

I would love some advice on these camers and other options I should consider. I know I wouldnt go any higher that the price of the 7D body. Also knowing that the holidays are coming up it may be a good time to catch a sale/rebate/holiday deal on some good quality cameras. I thank you in advance.

[FrankMi]

If your budget can grow over time to pick up additional lenses and accessories, I would start with the best camera and one lens that you can afford and over time pick up additional lenses as your needs grow along with your budget. But, you'll need other stuff to get started.

When I got my DSLR almost two years ago, I had spent almost four times the cost of the camera and kit lens to get a wide-angle lens, a telephoto lens, memory cards, spare batteries, tripod & head, post processing software, carrying case, filters, strobe, remote trigger, on and on...

[Rebellion]

Hi this is my opinion go for the quality of the lens, I own a longstanding canon 50d and I have invested in the Canon L series lense and I do not regret this decision, regardless of your desision NIKON CANON you should go for quality lense
Tony

[Melkus]

First of all welcome to CiC. Starting out you really don't need but one lens then as time gose on you can add to your lens stable if needed. Most of your cameras will come with a 18-55mm kit lens which is not really that bad.

Think of the kit lens as two lenses in one, treat it as an 18mm and 55mm lens in one. The 18mm is a moderate wide-angle that is great for landscapes, architecture and environmental portraiture. The 55mm end is a short telephoto lens ideal for compressing perspective and taking portraits or closing in on details. That doesn’t mean you can’t use the in-between focal lengths, and there are times when you can’t avoid it, but by sticking with the shortest and longest focal lengths you will learn how those focal lengths behave. Lenses are the ‘eye’ of your camera system and your photos will improve as you learn the characteristics of each focal length.

Now as to which camera to get well the flood gate wide open there, there are many very good entry-level out right now. There are several factors to consider before buying a camera and while many people would put resolution top of their shopping list, I am not one of them. Of course the number of megapixels is important but it is not as critical as it used to be and even the most budget digital SLR has a resolution of 10-megapixels and, with good camera technique, that is plenty enough for film quality poster-sized enlargements.

The first things to decide is how much you have to spend and what you want to do with the camera.
A digital SLR with a kit zoom lens will cost in the region of $ 400-$500, so that it is good starting point. That would buy an auto focus, automatic exposure camera with a lens that would enable you to photograph most general subjects easily. Spending more on a camera would give even more features, better build quality, fast shooting speeds and more resolution.

If you have the budget by all means invest in a more expensive camera, especially if you want features like Live View, Face Detection and Movie mode, but before making that commitment just think about what you are going to use it for. You might prefer to put the money towards an extra lens or two or some specific accessories like filters, a flashgun or a tripod. In other words, consider using your budget to buy a photographic outfit rather than choosing the right digital SLR than just a camera and lens. Of course, if you prefer to invest in the best camera you can and then add extra items as you gain experience that is fine too.

So, if you simply want high quality family pictures, especially for photo printing, a digital SLR with a standard kit lens would be perfect and you would not be disappointed with the results. However, if you want to photograph a broader subject range you will be frustrated with having just one lens. For example, for taking travel pictures having a telephoto zoom lens will help you make more of the wonderful sights. Or you might have a specialist interest so, if you enjoy photographing flowers or insects in the garden, a macro lens would be a sensible buy and will let you focus closely enough on these small subjects.

Once you have made a shortlist of the products you like, it is really important that you get in-store and see how each camera feels in your hands. All cameras are basically similar but size, placement of controls, the handgrip and so on differs from model to model. One camera might feel 'right' and another might not, and that is why it is important to try each camera for size.

[Polar01]

Snowman welcome to CIC, as you have read a number of posts on CIC you will have noticed that we use first names a lot, you can add that if you go into your profile, also location would help so we can tell you where you should really go, that is in suppliers in your part of the world. I am going to take as guess "snowman" that you are in North America. Now to the real meat, unless you have big and I mean big bucks you are not going to do all that you have listed. Getting good glass is one of the most important things, as it does not change every 2 to 3 years like cameras. I would suggest if possible rent a camera for a weekend, first one make and then another make to get a feel for it.
Both the D7 and the D7000 (I own this) are excellent cameras, and basically to me comes down to which one feels best in my hands. I would get with the rented camera a 50mm lens with both as to balance out the feel and comparison of images on your computer. Do not go but the LCD on the back of the camera for it you do and I will said it, Canon has a looking image on their viewer (there I said it Canon users, yours it better).
I would also try to decide which of the types of image taking you want to tackle first, as this will have an large effect on the type of glass is suggested. Oh if you want to do all of them at once 20k should do it.

Cheers:

Allan

[Manfred M]

Hi Snowman - welcome to CiC. I went through a similar process when I first decided to switch to a serious digital camera after decades of shooting film and then moving into digital with point & shoot and cross-over cameras.

I first started to seriously look at a DSLR about four years ago, and after the first cut of analysis determined that I would not be going with either the (micro) four-thirds cameras as they were very much in flux and also ruled out both Pentax and Sony, really because of their market share and depth (neither had a professional line).

That narrowed it down to Canon and Nikon, was not a Canon or Nikon SLR shooter, I had no strong feelings regarding one brand or the other. I narrowed things down checking out the basic consumer, high end consumer and low end prosumer models in each line, and when I added up all the pluses and minus, it really was a wash with no overwhelming technical advantage to one brand over the other.

In the end, I went with ergonomics. One brand just felt more secure in my hands and the controls and layout were just more intuitive to use, regardless of the model. In my day job, I’m an engineering manager, and I lead design teams that develop products and business processes, so I am particularly attuned to having human factors / ergonomics done well. I went for the camera I was most comfortable with.

Was this the right choice? Yes it was. I don’t shoot every day, so having something that feels comfortable and intuitive when I pick it up once or twice a week work well for me. I get to shoot the other brand (my brother and his son have them) and I get to shoot them a few times a year, and I still feel that they are a bit more awkward for me to use.

[Mark von Kanel]

Went through all this 2 years ago and i agree with Manfred, its important how the camera feels to you so go and hold them both i was choosing between the 7d and the d7000 as well, they are comparable cameras but the 7D is not worth significantly more amounts of cash.

have you considered second hand? There are lots of little used good examples out there. the d7000 will be due a make over soon its getting up to 2 years old and Nikon tend to refresh at that point.

good luck and keep us informed how it goes.

[davidedric]

About four years ago I went down the same route as Manfred. A bridge camera was leaving me frustrated, and so I decided to go back to slr, though now of course dslr, since I'd last been on film. I read all the reviews and decided to get an entry level nikon (all my film slr's had been canon) I was happy enough with the camera, but a year ago my bag was stolen and the insurance money meant I could start again. I went back to canon and immediately felt more comfortable: it just fits my hands and my brain better. All this is really to emphasise the importance of what feels right. Hiring your likely models from the two ranges seems like an excellent idea. I think you've already had lots of advice on glass, but I'd just add if you are such an outdoor type don't forget the weight! As well as my "best" two zooms I also have a tamron 18/270. The IQ isn't right up there all through the focal lengths and apertures, but it is portable and it would give you the greatest range of shots.

[Melkus]

Snowman if your also thinking about which brand to buy here my take on that. When it comes to camera brands, people get religious. For some reason, people don’t argue loudly about HP vs. Dell or Audi vs. BMW, but when it comes to Canon vs. Nikon, people will defend their favorite brand to the death; if some poor soul dares to suggest another brand, like Sony or Pentax, murder ensures. I heard people saying “Nikons have the best quality“, “I trust Sony to make good electronics“, “I’m a die-hard Oly fan“, “Annie Leibovitz uses Canon“, “Pentax means value for money” and so on.
Choosing a camera based solely on brand is great if you want to show it off, but not if you intend to actually use it
There are fore main dSLR manufactures Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony and a few smaller ones like
Sigma and Olympus, Olympus is trying to make a come back with there E-5 but they have be in financial troubles in the past.
Let get this straight: in terms of quality, all of them are great. Sony got into dSLR business by buying everything from Minolta, so all of these brands have a lot of history behind them. Each of these can list innovations, awards and achievements.
When you compare two cameras in the same range (entry-level, advanced amateur, etc.) the differences in terms of quality or features are very small. I won’t attempt to debunk any myths (there are too many of them), but all manufacturers produce cameras with great reliability

[Loose Canon]

Hi Snowman and welcome to the Board!

All excellent advice above so the only thing I will add is this.

When I was going through what you are looking at it was going to be Canon or Nikon.

I didn’t particularly care which at the time.

But I also knew that if I were going to be taking this journey, I was going to be dropping a considerable amount of cash in the future after my initial entry (and boy was I ever right about that!). I was also sure that when I did I was going to go for the top-drawer gear that any particular manufacturer offered.

I found that Canon’s top-of-the-line gear (glass especially) was slightly less than Nikon’s price-wise. I figured if I could save a couple hundred here and there, it would add up fast (and boy was I ever right about that, too!).

Since I knew that there was virtually no difference in quality between the manufacturers, and if it boiled down to things such as ergonomics, etc., I figured I might as well look down the road a ways and see where it might lead.

Believe it or not, it was this price difference that determined my final decision on which family to join. I don’t have any idea how the brands compare price-wise now and things could certainly be different. Fact is I can’t really care because I’m heavily invested in a single brand at this point. It is whatever it is! But I pulled the trigger and never looked back!

Just a Theory, Snowman!

[PhotoByTrace]

To get you started with that list of things you would like to do I'd suggest the D7000 body only then add the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VRII and the 50mm f/1.8 (or the equivalents in the Canon range which are all equally as good). Then add a travel tripod and head, backpack, a couple of memory cards and Photoshop Elements. I started out with a very similar setup and do pretty much everything you've listed including having a couple of images published. Though admitedly my sports photography is equestrian and dog agility rather than football, hockey and kids sports; but these still require zoom coupled with a focus system that works well with motion and is reasonably fast. The 18-200 is a "jack of all trades" and is relatively light; good for travel.

Neither of these lenses are the sharpest or fastest, but they'll get you started and carry you through to a point where you will know more definitively what you need from experience.

And if that collection is beyond the budget consider an older/discontinued model (but new) body. They are still selling D90s here and they are wonderfully cheap and will still do a very good job with a few less pixels. Ditto all of that for Canon if that ends up being your preference.

Good luck with it and we look forward to you sharing your first images as you overcome your paralysis

[rpcrowe]

Buying a camera is a lot like marrying a person with a large family. Even though you love the person, if you don't like the family and if the new partner is extremely close to his or her family, the marriage might be problematic.

In purchasing a camera, I would recommend looking at the line of support equipment available (family of the bride or groom), especially lenses! Lenses are more important in achieving image quality than even the camera itself. In perusing the selection of lenses, I suggest you look at the glass with the following in mind:

1. Are there lenses available at a price you can afford (or are willing to pay) that will suit your photographic needs...
2. If you eventually plan to purchase lenses on the used market, is there a selection available...

I am a Canon guy and am very happy with that brand. However, I am not blind to the fact that Nikon may equal or even surpass Canon in some areas. I shoot with a combination of 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses and absolutely love that combination. My absolute favorite lens is the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS which has super image quality, top-notch focus capability, outstanding image stabilization at a great price and at a great weight. I considered Nikon as a step behind Canon (for my own uses) because they did not have a lens to compete with the 70-200mm f/4L IS in all of the above parameters. The vsriable aperture 70-300mm (Canon non-L, Nikon and Tamron) lenses don't IMO match the performance of my f/4L IS lens. Nikon, has recently released their own 70-200mm f/4 lens which is a direct competitor to my favorite Canon lens. If I were starting my equipment collection, I might consider Nikon as a stronger competitor because of their new lens.

I really wish that video was not such a strong selling point and than the major makers would produce a strictly still camera and concentrate their efforts in achieving the best still camera possible but, that will never happen. Video, articulating LCD's and ISO's of mega millions are what sell cameras today. If I were locked into Canon and wanted to shoot video, I would seriously investigate the T4i which along with some Nikon models I consider better for video than any other Canon DSLR because of the focusing cpabilities while shooting video. OTOH - I shoot my videos with a Panasonic HDC-TM900 .

In fact, if I wanted to get the best still imagery at a bargain price; I would seriously consider a used 40D or 50D and match it with a refurbished 17-55mm f/4L IS lens. Both the 40d and 50D are excellent cameras and the 17-55mm is the flagship of the anon 1.6x lens line.... Yes, the 17-55mm lens is expensive ($989 refurbished at Adorama) but it is a wonderful glass capable of superb imagery. I would expect that the IQ and versatility (due to the constant f/2.8 aperture) of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens would allow the photographer to grow; and grow faster than matching the 60D, the 7D or like Nikon cameras with a lesser lens such as one of the kit lenses...