Digital SLR - your recommendations

[vandijk]

Off course -- it is a good camera!

I am using the 10D and hardly use the burst mode (9 frames). If you are a pro you would like to capture that special moment -- e.g. an accident or overtake and you would require this feature. But for us, amateurs , 4-9 frames should be more than sufficient. I would bet that a lot of people did not even use this feature on their normal 'film' cameras.

Maybe more of interest is the speed of focus - which has more or less a close relation with the type of glass you are using (better said; one can afford himself...).

gi_gav; do you have other specific reasons not to choose the 300D? (I have, but I am interested what yours are)

/s.

[Crash Test]

At least with digital cameras, you can go silly with burst modes etc and it doesn't cost you anything. If I were to use the continuous function on the old Nikon, I'd burn up a roll of film by hitting the trigger once- and I couldn't really afford that!

[djb]

aysedasi made a very important point about whacking away at something with high fps. I too have been photographing seriously for about 20 years, and while digital photography does allow one to be more reckless and take more chances with shooting, the importance of knowing when to click, with what focal length, distance to subject--all whether its with a 300mm and a moving car or a 35mm and someone a step away from you, not to mention lighting when you get into that neck of the woods, these factors are all more important than the latest widget body around your neck.

Yes, a full time sports shooter will be able to use to his or her advantage the technical aspects of a Canon 1D lets say, and a very quickly focusing long lens, I know that my equipment is a compromise for shooting motorsport, but then I'm not making my living shooting this, but can still use it to a fair level, and it works well enough for my other uses.

[Aysedasi]

So, leaving aside the burst mode - what else, if anything, should put me off the 300D? vandijk, you said you have other reasons - I'd appreciate knowing what they are? The last thing I want to do is to shell out cash on a lemon......

[PaulSands]

I know I keep banging on but make sure you dont get a Sigma SD9 that will avoid the lemon

[vwpilot]

Couple of things I dont like is that for sports and racing you cannot use continuous AF unless you are in the sports program mode. That means you do not have any control over your exposure if you want continuous focus, something I desperately need in a camera.

Also no rear command dial and only a four shot buffer. I can get away many times without the acual burst rate, but would quickly fill up the four shot buffer. It is also a dog writing to a memory card, even with the fastest ones out there, so that buffer comes up mighty fast. (I work in a shop and have played with one)

Definately spend the extra cash for the 10d or the D100 if you are looking for a camera to mainly shoot motorsports with.

If its going to be your average family camera for kids shots and landscapes with the ocassional race, it would be ok, but if you want to shoot motorsports with any regularity, I would spend the extra cash, you wont be sorry you did in the long run.

Think about it this way. If you were buying a film camera, would you buy the Rebel? If not, you shouldnt be buying a digital Rebel just cause of price.

[Truckosaurus]

Originally posted by vwpilot
If you were buying a film camera, would you buy the Rebel? If not, you shouldnt be buying a digital Rebel just cause of price.

Excuse my ignorance, but what's a Rebel Camera?:confused:

[vandijk]

Originally posted by Guy Humpage
Excuse my ignorance, but what's a Rebel Camera?:confused:

Guy,

Rebel is the name Canon uses in the US for their cameras.

/s.

[vwpilot]

Sorry, a Rebel is the entry level film camera used by Canon in the States. I dont know what the Euro equal would be, but the two least expensive Canon cameras in the States use the Rebel nameplate.

Additionally the 300D is called the Digital Rebel in the States.

[kdr]

Originally posted by vwpilot
Couple of things I dont like is that for sports and racing you cannot use continuous AF unless you are in the sports program mode. That means you do not have any control over your exposure if you want continuous focus, something I desperately need in a camera.

other sports maybe...but autofocus on cars is a waste of time. imho of course.

[vwpilot]

I use AF almost 100% of the time. I rarely go to manual focus. I know a lot of top photogs that feel the same as well.

For me I could not live without continuous af while still being able to use manual exposure.

[gi_gav]

I think most of this has been covered by vwpilot, but there were a couple of other reasons:

- no second curtain sync flash (firing at the end of the exposure rather than the start)- at least on the inbuilt one, still unsure about with a compatible speedlight - which i like to be able to use with really low light and just in general photography.

Primarily, it just didn't feel as well-specced as my EOS 50E which i picked up for £142. I missed having slow sync flash, and the buffer limits the camera more than you'd think.
It just felt like a digital version of my very basic EOS 3000, which doesn't justify the cost of it.

What it came down to was spending a huge amount of money on something that i wasn't totally satisfied by. I just know that if i'd kept it, i'd be trading it in for a 10D within a year.

[kdr]

Originally posted by vwpilot
I use AF almost 100% of the time. I rarely go to manual focus. I know a lot of top photogs that feel the same as well.

really? in motorsport? i must be mixing with the wrong boys then.

[Aysedasi]

The Rebel is the equivalent, I believe of the old EOS 1000, isn't it?

Thanks for all the info. I think you've managed to put me off the 300D. Shame, it looked good for the price. I shall have to keep saving......

By the way kdr, I use AF quite a bit too. Not all the time, but certainly predictive. The Predictive AF on my EOS I've always found to be very good. (Apart from that, my eyesight is awful..... )

[kdr]

i've always found most guys prefocus and shoot ayse...those bmw, volkswagen and vauxhall sportscars move pretty darn fast!

i guess its whatever suits you and your camera though...i've always shot with a nikon f3 and f4, with auto everything switched off. shooting cars isn't rocket science...its looking for ideas that haven't been done to death thats the hard part.

[vwpilot]

Sure, I know a lot that use MF as well. But I like AF and with the newer lenses and AF systems on the latest high end cameras, the AF can keep up with even some of the fastest cars.

Of course there are times when you have to use MF. If I am trying to hit a front on or going away shot where the car will just be popping into the frame and the AF does not have time to lock on. Low light like at dusk of a night race.

But even with pans I can use AF because I begin to follow the car for as long as I can to get the pan down, by allowing the camera to start follow focusing, it will be tack sharp (at least as far as focus is conerned) when I need to shoot. Head on and going away shots where I can follow the car for a bit are also easily done with AF.

But I have to say that I use pro bodies and Nikon AF-S lenses, so they are as fast as it gets for the most part when it comes to focusing. I might feel differently if I were using consumer lenses an lower bodies. Also if you are using a F4, you dont have the latest AF system and that could be part of the issue.

I think you'll find that most top end cameras and lenses from Nikon and Canon have enough speed to keep up with some of the fastest sports.

[kdr]

agreed....the af on the f4 is a real comedy of errors! my "f1 boys" seem to use af on slow pans...but thats about it. as the f3 obviously doesn't have af, and the f4s is rubbish...i don't bother and don't even think about af - i spend most of my time worrying about my errrr.. experimental exposures!

[Aysedasi]

I've never had much success with AF for panning shots, I must admit. I invariably pre-focus for those.

[kdr]

stick with what you feel happy with ayse. when you try and be clever things invariably go wrong!

[stefan]

Well, I've gone for the 300d. I'm sure it'll be a big step up from the nikon 5700 I have now. For me it was an easy choice - the quality of the images can be as good as the 10D for a lot less money. I decided to spend the money I saved on good lenses which I can keep when in a year or two I upgrade to a new body which will have all the features and maybe a higher resolution - perhaps even a completely different type of ccd - for £600.

In my view the price of digital cameras is still dropping at a phenomenal rate. For a hobby I can't justify spending top rates for the very latest gear - maybe it'd be different if it were my job.

[djb]

Happy shooting Stefan, you may however want to keep an eye out for the latest sales on 50 packs of CD's and/or a DVD burner.....

and I agree completely for using the extra money for as good glass as one can afford. It was such with film bodies, and I would say even more so with a digi body, as the resolution and characteristics of a given body is pretty well as is and isn't going to change, other than firmware upgrades and postprob technique improvements. Good glass will also keep its value in terms of selling it sometime down the road, especially if one isnt a gorilla with it over the years.

[Suzy]

Stupid question time folks: do Nikon do digital SLR's which have interchangable lenses? I use a film Nikon F55 which I love - but the thought occured to me that, if and when I decide to go digital, could I still use the Nikon lenses on a digital Nikon SLR?

[stefan]

Yes, the cheapest is the D100 - currently about £1240. Then there are the professional models - the D2H £2650 and the D1H £3200. I'm pretty sure thay'll take all AF lenses.

[kdr]

suzy to the best of my knowledge you can use all nikon lenses on all nikon bodies. i know i zip back and forward between an f3, and f4 and a d1.

[redshoes]

One word of warning though. I'm not sure if this applies to Nikon or not, it certainly does to Canon. The more recent DSLRs use a slightly different connection for the electronics on the lens mount. Older lens will still fit but might not function correctly. There was a thread about this a few months back. Probably more of an issue with older or other brand lenses.