Thinking about going DSLR: Need help w/ affordable lenses

[Man-Fai Wong]

Hi, y'all.

I'm a Canon G3 user and never owned an SLR before, but I'm starting to feel a yearning to go DSLR though I'll probably wait until the next batch of DSLRs come out (maybe in Spring 2004) before deciding for sure.

Here are my reasons for thinking DSLR so far:

1. DoF control period.
2. Much better low light performance, eg. usable high ISO's.
3. Much better AF and MF capabilities.
4. Availability of longer zoom lens though this might not be as critical as the other 3 points.

I'm thinking that I will probably still keep the G3 for its portability and shooting at difficult angles/positions using the flip-out LCD, but want a DSLR for when those things are not a concern. I do lug my G3 kit around almost everywhere (ie. G3 + lensmate, 420ex, tele and WA w/ lensmates, assorted small items), so I might do almost the same w/ a DSLR and maybe even carry both cameras on occasion (minus the G3 accessories of course).

Anyway, I'm thinking that I might want to start out w/ 2 lenses and maybe add a longer zoom later. 2 lenses for portability and to keep things simple while still covering good wide angle through portrait shooting range.

All this I'm sure is simple to achieve and I can easily find the answers if I have mega $$$ to spend on the best lenses, but of course, I don't have mega $$$, and I'm not doing this for pay either. It seems almost like Canon DSLR owners tend to only talk about the expensive L lenses (well, at least on DPR's forums), and I find it difficult to get a good feel for what I can expect from much more affordable lenses other than the most obvious (eg. max f-stop, focal lengths). I'm reasonably happy w/ the G3's lens sharpness, so I'm not necessarily looking for the sharpest lenses, but I would expect better than the G3's (and hopefully, less optical distortions/aberrations also).

Now, I want to be realistic and find out whether DSLR is worth considering for spring/summer 2004 given my criteria. I haven't decided yet on budget for lenses, but offhand, I'm thinking I won't want to spend more $$$ on 3 lenses (including the longer zoom) than the cost of the camera body. Let's say the body will be ~$900 (given D-Rebel pricing and the announced upcoming Nikon D70), then that would be ~$900 for 3 lenses ranging from good wideangle through maybe 200mm (or 300mm if possible). Of course, if I can get by w/ less $$$, then all the better.

So given what I'm looking for, is what I'm thinking possible to do? What lenses would you recommend and why?

Remember, I want much better low light performance than my G3 , not just DoF control, better AF/MF, etc., so if the lenses are much "slower" than the G3's f2-3, 35-140mm (35mm equiv and besides my tele and WA add-on's), then that would offset the much better high ISO performance of DSLRs. Actually, this lens speed issue might be insignificant for the wide end since I don't forsee using that in low light w/out flash. I guess lens speed begins to be more of an issue for me starting around 50mm (35mm equiv).

So what do you think?

TIA for any help/insights.

Regards,

_Man_

[Andy_T]

Hi Man-Fai,

Although the ratio 1 body = 3 lenses does not always hold true in the DSLR world, if you want to have good lenses that will continue to bring you fun as you move on to your next DSLR, it just seems possible.

Proposition:
18-55 Kit lens (100 USD)
50 f/1.8 low light /portrait lens (100 USD)
70-200 f/4 L (600 USD) tele zoom

Other noteworthy lenses to complement/replace, don't know the respective US prices:
Tamron 28-75 XR f/2.8 (400 USD)
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (700 USD?)
28-135 IS (400 USD?)
75-300 IS (400 USD?)
Zenitar 16 f/2.8 Fisheye (150 USD)

What range is most important for you in the DRebel? That's where you should put the emphasis on lens quality in the beginning. High quality in the wide end is really difficult to get by cheaply.

Regards,
Andy

[agit-prop]

Man-Fai

I own a 10D and four lenses (although I only use 3 of them regularly)

Tokina 19-35 f/3.5~4.5
Sigma Compact HZM Macro 28-200
Canon 50 f/1.8

They are all decent lenses although the zooms aren't particularly fast, and aren't super-sharp like you would see in a Canon L lens or Sigma EX. That being said, I spent less than $500 US for ALL of my lenses.

I would love to be able to afford a few L or EX lenses, but owning even one is beyond my means at the moment.

In the end, even these budget lenses will outperform the lens on the G3. You should get the camera with the pre-requisite 50mm f/1.8, and take the camera with you to a few stores so you can actually try the lenses you are considering.

[DaveG]

How about the 10D, the 24-85 3.5/4.5, and the 50 f1.8. A better camera, good range, and some speed.

[Man-Fai Wong]

andythaler wrote:
What range is most important for you in the DRebel? That's where you should put the emphasis on lens quality in the beginning. High quality in the wide end is really difficult to get by cheaply.

Regards,
Andy

Hi, Andy.

Thanks for your help.

At this point, I'm not sure what range is most important. I'm tempted to think the long end is less important to me -- hence, my thinking about going w/out at first. The problem though is that while sharpness is not very important to me, lens speed is since I will likely want/need to shoot w/out flash in low light situations. I don't think I'll need the lens speed as much on the wide end since I'll likely be using that in daylight (or use a flash for low light group pics).

I hear bad things about the D-Rebel's kit lens, but how bad is "bad" though? Is it still noticeably better than the G3's lens? If not, are there good alternatives?

It does seem the 50mm f1.8 is very popular although I'm not sure it makes sense for my kind of budget unless I'm sure I will add more lenses later.

I have heard about the Tamron 28-75 XR f/2.8 also, and thought maybe that's the way to go for ~$320 (from B&H). That would probably cover most of my shooting and still give me ~$600 to work w/ for the other lenses. The Canon 70-200 f4L seems to run ~$550, but would that be fine for shooting in low light w/out flash like in a play for example? The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 seems to run ~$750, which is probably too much for me. The Canon 75-300 IS at ~$400 might make sense, but how does it really compare to the 70-200 f4L -- I notice it's f4-5.6. Perhaps, more importantly, how does it compare to the better non-SLR long zoom lenses on prosumer cams since I'm not necessarily looking for sharper than that for the long end?

One thing that I must consider in all this is what I can get for a comparable Nikon body like the upcoming D70. From what I'm hearing, it sounds like there might be more decent lenses available for the budget conscious there.

Thanks again for your help.

_Man_

[Andy_T]

Seems you did your research :)

... the 50/1.8 makes sense for ANY kind of budget, as it's supposed to be a great low light lens at a more than affordable price.

Another thing on low light performance ... one of the MAJOR differences is that the 1600 ISO setting of the DRebel produces better (less grain) images than the G3 at 200... that way, you can easily sacrifice the extra f-stop over the G3's 2.0 (which is a 2.8 anyway when zoomed in).

Regards,
Andy

BTW, look at http://www.photozone.de for lists of lens ratings.....

[Man-Fai Wong]

Agit-Prop wrote:
Man-Fai

I own a 10D and four lenses (although I only use 3 of them regularly)

Tokina 19-35 f/3.5~4.5
Sigma Compact HZM Macro 28-200
Canon 50 f/1.8

They are all decent lenses although the zooms aren't particularly fast, and aren't super-sharp like you would see in a Canon L lens or Sigma EX. That being said, I spent less than $500 US for ALL of my lenses.

I would love to be able to afford a few L or EX lenses, but owning even one is beyond my means at the moment.

In the end, even these budget lenses will outperform the lens on the G3. You should get the camera with the pre-requisite 50mm f/1.8, and take the camera with you to a few stores so you can actually try the lenses you are considering.

Thanks for the info and insight. Nice to hear about these other lenses that I haven't heard of before. However, while my criteria isn't sharpness, I do really want good lens speed for low light w/out flash, except maybe the wide end, so I'm not sure if the Sigma 28-200 Compact HZM would do. Also, can you tell why you went w/ such a large zoom range like 28-200, instead of going w/ 2 lenses there? I don't really mind splitting it between 2 lenses if I can get better quality, faster lenses since I find that I don't actually need to go beyond ~120mm (35mm equiv) very often w/ my G3. And the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR seems perfect for that. In fact, that's why I might hold off on a longer zoom at first.

Your mention of the Tokina 19-35 seems like good possibility for me since I don't think I'll need the lens speed there. Is that better than the Canon 18-55 kit lens for the D-Rebel? I would like every little extra bit of wideangle even though I won't need lens speed. The 19mm end w/ 1.6x crop factor would only yield ~30.4mm (35mm equiv), which isn't that wide -- my G3 + WA goes to ~24.5mm (35mm equiv). And I guess this is one more thing about going w/ Canon instead of Nikon -- they seem to use 1.5x crop factor instead although there are no guarantees about the upcoming D70.

_Man_

[Man-Fai Wong]

andythaler wrote:
Seems you did your research :)


Ha ha. Well, I did a little, but not enough to get a real good idea about lens quality for anything less than the L lenses and a couple non-Canon's like the Tamron XR. Those get talked about so much that I only really need to quickly scan 1 or 2 pages worth of threads on DPR's Canon SLR Lens forum. :D

The rest of the stuff is more from me just learning about photography w/ the G3 and keeping tabs on general digicam info, etc.


... the 50/1.8 makes sense for ANY kind of budget, as it's supposed to be a great low light lens at a more than affordable price.


That may be true, but for a $900 budget, that still eats up ~11%. If I go w/ the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR, then I might not be able to afford it and still get something decent for wider and longer ends. Seems like I would have to be able to live w/ just the 50mm when I need some lens speed, instead of knowing I will always have some lens speed for the bulk of my shooting. It would seem to make more sense to have the f2.8 w/ the zoom (for me anyway).


Another thing on low light performance ... one of the MAJOR differences is that the 1600 ISO setting of the DRebel produces better (less grain) images than the G3 at 200... that way, you can easily sacrifice the extra f-stop over the G3's 2.0 (which is a 2.8 anyway when zoomed in).


Hmmm... I had thought ISO1600 would be better than ISO400 on the G3, but didn't know it would be better than ISO200(!) also. That would indeed make a big difference to the equation. Guess I didn't do enough research afterall. :D


BTW, look at http://www.photozone.de for lists of lens ratings.....


Yeah, I just did as I found the thread asking about a lens FAQ from a few days ago(?). Q: Can those ratings be used to compare quality between lenses from different lists/categories? For example, I can actually compare the Canon 50 f/1.8 to the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR w/ those ratings for a rough comparison? They have similar ratings there.

Thanks again.

_Man_

[Man-Fai Wong]

DaveG wrote:
How about the 10D, the 24-85 3.5/4.5, and the 50 f1.8. A better camera, good range, and some speed.

Hi, Dave.

Thanks for the suggestion. But given the fast pace of advancing DSLR tech, I really wonder if the 10D makes sense for me when something like the D-Rebel should do although I don't like the idea of missing FEC and perhaps a couple other things. It might make sense if I know I'm selling my G3 to help cover the cost difference, but I'm not sure about that one.

Part of the problem is that these DSLRs have a 1.6x crop factor, so I can't actually get as wide as my G3 + WA converter w/out spending as much on one 15mm lens as the 10D itself. I'm starting to think I should keep the G3 + WA just for its wide end since I don't really need the superb low light performance or faster/better focusing or even DoF control for that although the extra MPs would be great (especially in the 3:2 format vs 4:3) for cropping to a wider semi-pano photo. I really would want to keep the G3 anyway for its portability and my occasional need for the flip-out LCD.

To all,

So what would you say about this idea?

* D-Rebel (or maybe Nikon D70 or something else comparable, but not announced yet) to use for mid-to-long range w/ 2 or 3 lenses.

* G3 + WA converter to use for wide end (and when portability or the flip-out LCD is needed).

_Man_

[DonCoon]

If you get the DRebel, make sure to get the 18-55 kit lens with it. It will cost you $100 more but if you decide you'd like something better later on, you can sell it on Ebay for a profit. They're going for over $150 -- don't ask me why.

On the other hand, I hear it's a pretty decent lens so you'll have WA on your Rebel. The 18-55 and 70-200 F4L would make a pretty good starting combination, IMHO.

[DaveG]

"But given the fast pace of advancing DSLR tech, I really wonder if the 10D makes sense for me when something like the D-Rebel ... "

I just think that the better build of the 10D as well as the lack of Custom functions on the dRebel make the 10D a better longer term value.


"Part of the problem is that these DSLRs have a 1.6x crop factor, so I can't actually get as wide as my G3 + WA converter w/out spending as much on one 15mm lens as the 10D itself. I'm starting to think I should keep the G3 + WA just for its wide end since I don't really need the superb low light performance or faster/better focusing or even DoF control for that although the extra MPs would be great (especially in the 3:2 format vs 4:3) for cropping to a wider semi-pano photo. I really would want to keep the G3 anyway for its portability and my occasional need for the flip-out LCD.

To all,

So what would you say about this idea?"

The G3 is a toy compared to the 10D.

"* D-Rebel (or maybe Nikon D70 or something else comparable, but not announced yet) to use for mid-to-long range w/ 2 or 3 lenses."

The problem with the Nikon is that it's due out in February, or maybe May, or maybe in time for Photokina in the fall. Nikon has specialized in vapourware over the last while. They tell the peasants that something is coming out and at worst it'll create doubt in wanna-be Canon buyers minds.

Think about buying the D70 after Nikon actually introduces it and it's on store shelves.

[CoolToolGuy]

I wouldn't call the G3 a toy compared to the 10D.

The G3 has many EOS features in a package that you can fit into a cargo pocket in your pants. Try putting a 10D with any lens in any pocket you might have.

A DSLR will inherently have more capability than a rangefinder (I can't bring myself to refer to the G3 as a P&S), but the G3 is a very capable instrument. If I was going to have only one camera it would be a DSLR, but there is room for both in my inventory.

Sorry if I got a little defensive, but I like the G3 - in spite of my growing collection of EOS equipment.

Have Fun
Rick

[Man-Fai Wong]

DonCoon wrote:
If you get the DRebel, make sure to get the 18-55 kit lens with it. It will cost you $100 more but if you decide you'd like something better later on, you can sell it on Ebay for a profit. They're going for over $150 -- don't ask me why.

On the other hand, I hear it's a pretty decent lens so you'll have WA on your Rebel. The 18-55 and 70-200 F4L would make a pretty good starting combination, IMHO.

Hi, Don.

Thanks for this tip about the kit lens. Pretty strange that I could make a profit that way, but then again, I've seen stranger things when I first got into DVDs back in 1998 -- actually sold a couple low-end players I didn't like on eBay for a 50-100% profit just because of all the crazy web deals that eBayers didn't know about.

Still, I wouldn't want to get the kit lens just to resell on eBay since things can change quickly (and it's a hassle really). Would I get noticeably better results w/ the kit lens than my G3 for its ~29-88mm range (35mm equiv) aside from the higher res? I guess that would be an important factor for me.

Still, that does leave a gap between the kit lens and the 70-200 f/4L, especially since the kit lens would be f/5.6 when zoomed in. I might still end up wanting that Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR for the bulk of the shooting.

_Man_

[Man-Fai Wong]

DaveG wrote:
"But given the fast pace of advancing DSLR tech, I really wonder if the 10D makes sense for me when something like the D-Rebel ... "

I just think that the better build of the 10D as well as the lack of Custom functions on the dRebel make the 10D a better longer term value.


The thing is that I'd think I can sell the D-Rebel if I ever feel a need to upgrade to a 10D level camera. The gap is really quite substantial for an amateur like me since I'm not expecting my photography to pay for the equipment costs -- I may never advance that far for that.

I can appreciate long term value if the technology has already matured to the point where not much more can be expected, but that doesn't seem to be the case. For one thing, it'd be nice to eventually have a DSLR that has 1:1 ratio, instead of the 1.6x crop factor.

For me, the only things I know I might miss offhand are one-shot AF, FEC and 2nd curtain flash sync, and how the G-series has these features (although the AF is not comparable), but the D-Rebel does not really boggles my mind. :D And well, yes, I'd much rather have the black, metal body of the 10D also, but that's a rather small issue for an amateur. Actually, I wonder if the louder mirror/shutter isn't more objectionable than the color and construction. At least the D-Rebel is more portable than the 10D though, so its inferior build/construction at least has that redeeming quality for an amateur like me.


The G3 is a toy compared to the 10D.


That's certainly true in many ways, but for an amateur, the G3 can get the "job" done in many situations. Certainly, it's quite a bit smaller than the 10D. And having a flip-out LCD is a significant draw for creative shooting (in those situations where the key DSLR benefits are not important of course).

In the end, they are all just tools, and some tools are just naturally better (or simply suitable enough) for some purposes. No one camera is best for everything afterall -- at least not yet.


The problem with the Nikon is that it's due out in February, or maybe May, or maybe in time for Photokina in the fall. Nikon has specialized in vapourware over the last while. They tell the peasants that something is coming out and at worst it'll create doubt in wanna-be Canon buyers minds.

Think about buying the D70 after Nikon actually introduces it and it's on store shelves.


Yeah, that is a problem. But since I need to be budget conscious AND would like something a little bit better than the D-Rebel, I do have to give that some consideration (along w/ whatever Canon might release come spring). Who knows? Maybe by spring, Canon will have a replacement for the 10D, and I might be able to buy a good used one for much less than new ones right now. That is, if Canon doesn't come out w/ something between the D-Rebel and 10D that would suit me best.

Again, given the rapid advances of the technologies, it's just too easy to get burned w/ "overspending" now for what I don't need yet, which would be the case if I went w/ the 10D. At least w/ lenses, I wouldn't expect a decent one to become obsolete very fast.

_Man_

[Man-Fai Wong]

cooltoolguy wrote:
I wouldn't call the G3 a toy compared to the 10D.

The G3 has many EOS features in a package that you can fit into a cargo pocket in your pants. Try putting a 10D with any lens in any pocket you might have.

A DSLR will inherently have more capability than a rangefinder (I can't bring myself to refer to the G3 as a P&S), but the G3 is a very capable instrument. If I was going to have only one camera it would be a DSLR, but there is room for both in my inventory.

Sorry if I got a little defensive, but I like the G3 - in spite of my growing collection of EOS equipment.

Have Fun
Rick


Hi, Rick.

Thanks for chiming in.

No need to get "defensive" about the G3 being a "toy compared to the 10D". It's not like he called it a "toy" verbatim. :D I'm painfully aware of its limitations, which is why I'm yearning for more now after owning it for less than 1/2 year. It's fine for many things, but there really is a huge gap between it and a good DSLR. Having good support for EX flashes goes a long way to helping the G3, but I can't always bounce the flash. And in creative shooting, DoF control is almost nil w/ the G3 unless I'm mostly shooting macro close-ups, which I actually don't care that much about-- and anyway, there are better digital compacts for macros w/out add-on filters.

And who knows? Maybe I will sell the G3, if I find that a DSLR is all I need. I do lug around my G3 kit in my Tamrac Velocity 5 bag + attached pouch almost everywhere I go, so completely dumping the compacts is not out-of-the-question for me, especially w/ the smaller/lighter D-Rebel. Only thing I'll clearly miss is the flip-out LCD for the occasional weird POVs and waist/hip level shooting I like to use. :D Well, I'll also miss shooting w/ LCD live preview in general when I don't quite need the exact qualities of TTL OVF since I do wear glasses...

_Man_

[nosquare2003]

Man-Fai Wong wrote:
It seems almost like Canon DSLR owners tend to only talk about the expensive L lenses (well, at least on DPR's forums), and I find it difficult to get a good feel for what I can expect from much more affordable lenses other than the most obvious (eg. max f-stop, focal lengths). I'm reasonably happy w/ the G3's lens sharpness, so I'm not necessarily looking for the sharpest lenses, but I would expect better than the G3's (and hopefully, less optical distortions/aberrations also).

Remember, I want much better low light performance than my G3 , not just DoF control, better AF/MF, etc., so if the lenses are much "slower" than the G3's f2-3, 35-140mm (35mm equiv and besides my tele and WA add-on's), then that would offset the much better high ISO performance of DSLRs. Actually, this lens speed issue might be insignificant for the wide end since I don't forsee using that in low light w/out flash. I guess lens speed begins to be more of an issue for me starting around 50mm (35mm equiv).

So what do you think?

TIA for any help/insights.

Regards,

_Man_


Hi Man-Fai

I think that a sharp quality lens is important to DSLR so everybody talks about L lens. And it's not logical to put a poor lens on an expensive camera body. However, I don't have any L lens. I use non-L primes. They are light, good quality, and with large aperture (many of them are larger than 2.8). Compared to many consumer zooms, they are not cheap if you buy several of them (except the 50mm 1.8). But you can slowly add them to your lens list.

[Man-Fai Wong]

nosquare2003 wrote:
Hi Man-Fai

I think that a sharp quality lens is important to DSLR so everybody talks about L lens. And it's not logical to put a poor lens on an expensive camera body.


Yes, I do understand that point although we can't all own L lenses. :D Obviously, it really depends on what results one expects, and that's why I did qualify my questions by bringing up that issue, and also left room to consider that DSLR might not be feasible in my near future. Still, even if I only get slightly better optical quality than a 6MP prosumer (but still have the high ISO advantage intact), there would be plenty enough reasons to consider the D-Rebel (or whatever else might come out to replace or compete w/ it in the near future).

Certainly, your whole point is part of the reason why I wouldn't spend the $$$ on the 10D, instead of more worthwhile lenses.


However, I don't have any L lens. I use non-L primes. They are light, good quality, and with large aperture (many of them are larger than 2.8). Compared to many consumer zooms, they are not cheap if you buy several of them (except the 50mm 1.8). But you can slowly add them to your lens list.


I'm aware of the primes and understand they are generally best for optical quality. But they are too specialized for me as a beginner. If I were shooting studio-type portraits or landscapes for $$$, sure, that certainly makes sense. But that's not what I'm after -- well, at least not for the forseeable future. And I don't want to be labeled as someone spending big $$$ on gear just to shoot their kids (and pets!) like I often hear about 1D and 1Ds owners -- not that there's anything wrong w/ that (or that all I do is shoot my kids). :D

Anyway, as you said, I can slowly add the primes, which I just might do in the long run, but I can't know that offhand while I do very much want the flexibility of zooms though I won't be going for any "super zooms", LOL, RE: that other ancient post. :D

_Man_

[CoolToolGuy]

For those who still think the G3 is a toy, check out a topic in the G3 board titled 'Disney and the G3'. Quite interesting use of the 'toy' by the company that owns several giant theme parks and ABC & ESPN.

Have Fun
Rick-Drebel w/18-55/5.6, 28-135 IS, 75-300 IS, 50/1.8, 550EX, soon-to-be 24-70 and 85/1.8, F1 w/50/1.4, A1 w/50/1.4, FD24/2.8, FD135/2.5, FD35-105/3.5,FD100-300/5.6, and last but certainly not least my beloved G3-Stecker ;-)

[Man-Fai Wong]

cooltoolguy wrote:
For those who still think the G3 is a toy, check out a topic in the G3 board titled 'Disney and the G3'. Quite interesting use of the 'toy' by the company that owns several giant theme parks and ABC & ESPN.

Have Fun
Rick-Drebel w/18-55/5.6, 28-135 IS, 75-300 IS, 50/1.8, 550EX, soon-to-be 24-70 and 85/1.8, F1 w/50/1.4, A1 w/50/1.4, FD24/2.8, FD135/2.5, FD35-105/3.5,FD100-300/5.6, and last but certainly not least my beloved G3-Stecker ;-)

Rick,

I don't think the G3 is a "toy" verbatim -- it's clearly one of the best digital compacts around. But I can see how it can be considered as such when compared to a 10D w/ the appropriate lenses. And of course, any G3 owner should not need to feel defensive about such comparison since it's really not a reasonable comparison at all given the $$$ AND size/portability differences involved.

I'd think it's more worthwhile defending the D-Rebel if someone said that's a "toy" compared to the 10D.

_Man_

[dnadalin]

As a G3 owner who out grew it...



The G3 is a toy?
I very much miss the ability to use the flip out LCD and it's far more portable than the d.Rebel.
I went mushroom hunting over the weekend, on my knees and elbows trying to get a good shot with the d.Rebel. I needed a mini tripod.
With the G3 I just set it on the ground and flipped out the lens.
But let's not dwell on that.


ISO 1600 on the d.Rebel is better than ISO 200 on the G3?
Absolutely. Anything above ISO 100 on the G3 is noticebly grainy. I would go as far to say ISO 200 on the G3 = ISO 1600 on the d.Rebel. I avoided shooting above ISO 50 on the G3.

Man-Fai, here's how you decide if you want/need the Rebel. Go to a camera store. Ask to try out the Rebel. Go find the darkest corner of the room and attempt to focus on something. The d.Rebel will let you leave with the shot in a fraction of a second. With the G3 you'll still be there next week.

I like my G3, its portable and the flip out lens is extremly handy, but now I pull it out only in good light when I don't need any reach. I do plan to keep it.

I recently had the opportunity to shoot in a studio with my d.Rebel and it's Kit lens. Let me know what you think of the Kit lens.
http://www.pbase.com/image/24208874
A little over exposed on the left I think, but overall I am quite pleased with it.

For the near term I am OK with the Kit lens. I want some reach so will probably look at the 70-200 IS L as my first lens. Then the 50mm 1.8, then a high quality replacement for the kit lens. I feel like I'll have a hole in the 55-70 range so I'm also looking for something in the 55-135mm range.
It'll take me a year or two (or three) most likely.

My decision on getting the d.Rebel over the 10d was that I expect the 10d to be replaced in a year or two. Saving $500 on the body and getting a starter lens, lets me put the savings towards my first quality lens.
By the time the 10d replacement comes I'll have some decent lenses for it.
I spent as MORE on my G3 and "accessories" to enhance it as I did on the d.Rebel kit.

Anyway I hope my babbling helps...

Regards,
David
G3 & d.Rebel Owner.
FYI, most the stuff in my PBase Gallery (below) is G3. Stay tuned...that will change.

[Man-Fai Wong]

Hi, David.

Thanks for chiming in.

dnadalin wrote:
As a G3 owner who out grew it...
...
Man-Fai, here's how you decide if you want/need the Rebel. Go to a camera store. Ask to try out the Rebel. Go find the darkest corner of the room and attempt to focus on something. The d.Rebel will let you leave with the shot in a fraction of a second. With the G3 you'll still be there next week.


You don't need to convince me of this aspect of the upgrade. Heck, I have trouble w/ the G3's focusing ability in perfectly good daylight situations if I'm shooting action as I found out firsthand when I decided to casually try it out w/ the NYC Marathon several weeks ago. Of course, the partial backlight situation didn't help either since I had to also deal w/ dodgy fill-flash. :D

Actually, I do ok w/ the G3's weak manual focus feature combined w/ high DoF for shooting anything farther than a 3ft or so. That's what I do much of the time, instead of waiting for focus lock on every shot. But this doesn't solve the lack of DoF control issue nor action photography weakness.


I like my G3, its portable and the flip out lens is extremly handy, but now I pull it out only in good light when I don't need any reach. I do plan to keep it.


Yeah, I do agree about that, except when I need to shoot action -- and that's even assuming I can accept shooting hyperactive kids in motion w/ the weak MF feature as I've been doing all along.


I recently had the opportunity to shoot in a studio with my d.Rebel and it's Kit lens. Let me know what you think of the Kit lens.
http://www.pbase.com/image/24208874
A little over exposed on the left I think, but overall I am quite pleased with it.


Well, it's actually hard to tell since we're only looking at a web-sized image. I guess for a studio portrait you really have to do 8x10's to see since people do often do 8x10's for such.

And that's certainly something to consider about image quality. Not all of us are constantly printing enlargements that would take full advantage of the differences. And if you're enlarging beyond 8x10, well, you're probably not likely to be looking at it at close range (eg. on a desktop) to appreciate the differences anyway. And unless I'm becoming a pro, I don't expect to print too many poster-size pics either.


For the near term I am OK with the Kit lens. I want some reach so will probably look at the 70-200 IS L as my first lens. Then the 50mm 1.8, then a high quality replacement for the kit lens. I feel like I'll have a hole in the 55-70 range so I'm also looking for something in the 55-135mm range.
It'll take me a year or two (or three) most likely.


Hmmm... Why not a 28-75mm like the Tamron XR, instead of a 55-135, if you'll already have the 70-200 IS L? Seems like more overlap than you'd need. As a G3 owner, did you really find that you needed to zoom from shooting classic portrait range to well beyond the G3's native limit (ie. w/out adding tele converter)? I don't. And in fact, I rarely feel a need for my 1.7x tele w/out also wanting to go farther in the same scenario. I'm actually thinking I should just sell that tele period.

To get a 55-135 for your D-Rebel, that's like having 88-216 for the G3, which is almost like having a tele converter added onto the G3. And anyway, I don't see anything available for that range (at B&H's site). Everything that covers that range are "super zooms" that goes well beyond either the wide end or the tele end. Maybe 28-135 or 55-200? But that would be too much overlap w/ your kit lens and the 70-200 IS L while compromising quality.


My decision on getting the d.Rebel over the 10d was that I expect the 10d to be replaced in a year or two. Saving $500 on the body and getting a starter lens, lets me put the savings towards my first quality lens.
By the time the 10d replacement comes I'll have some decent lenses for it.


True enough, and that's why I don't want to go 10D either. I just wish the D-Rebel wasn't quite as crippled though. :D Still, I'm starting to think it might be good enough for me.


I spent as MORE on my G3 and "accessories" to enhance it as I did on the d.Rebel kit.


Well, me too actually although I think an external flash, batteries, CF cards and filters shouldn't really count since those would be just as desired/needed w/ a D-Rebel kit -- well, ok, external flash is not quite as crucial for D-Rebel w/ its high ISO capability, but still very good to have. In the end, it only makes sense to compare the G3 by itself to the D-Rebel kit when it comes to spending $$$ on absolute terms. And yes, it's apparent that it's worth the $$$, if you will benefit from most/all of the advantages.

_Man_

[nosquare2003]

Cheers! Everybody is happy with their camera.

Man-Fai, I cannot offer any help due to my limited experience. Since you know what you need, I believe you can find your "best" gear.

[dnadalin]

Man-Fai Wong wrote:

Actually, I do ok w/ the G3's weak manual focus feature combined w/ high DoF for shooting anything farther than a 3ft or so.

Yeah, I do agree about that, except when I need to shoot action -- and that's even assuming I can accept shooting hyperactive kids in motion w/ the weak MF feature as I've been doing all along.



Sounds like we arrived at the same solution, MF and high DOF is what I did for quite a bit of the kids activities, Soccer, Dance etc.

Man-Fai Wong wrote:
Hmmm... Why not a 28-75mm like the Tamron XR, instead of a 55-135, if you'll already have the 70-200 IS L? Seems like more overlap than you'd need.


Sorry typo on my part. I'm considering the Canon 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM EF Lens.
When I cover the girls Dance events, I want to be able to go from shooting individuals behind the scenes, to shooting the event from the gym stands and I'd rather not change lenses if avoidable.
If it's a more formal dance recital on stage then I'll go to the 70-200 IS L.
I have yet to do this kind of photgraphy with the kit lens, but it seems it might be a bit short. We have a dance competition this weekend so this will be my first test.

My "selection" of lenses changes daily ;-)
I'll do a lot of shooting and note taking with the Kit lens before I'll make up my mind.

[Andy_T]

Man-Fai Wong wrote:

I hear bad things about the D-Rebel's kit lens, but how bad is "bad" though? Is it still noticeably better than the G3's lens? If not, are there good alternatives?


Hi Man,

take a look at Guillermo Freiges site or try to contact him. AFAIK, he upgraded from the G5 to the DRebel some time ago and has an opinion and examples on that.

From what I've read, he's also always happy to help.

Regards,
Andy

[DNHayashida]

I own a G2 and a DReb. I have had the G2 for about 2 years and the DReb for 1 1/2 months. Prior to that I used Nikon SLR film cameras for 32 years.

Going over your reasons for thinking about going with a DSLR:

1. DoF - Yes you will have control over DoF again compared to a Gx camera.

2. Much better Low light performance - Achieving focus lock in dim light is much better on the DReb. With the onboard flash it strobes a few low power flashes to get focus lock and with an external flash like the 420ex the DReb (unlike the Gx series cameras) uses the flash's red focus assist lamp. True, the G2s lens is a 2.0, but with the DRebs way higher (usable!) ISO settings that is a non-issue. In all aspects - focus lock, focus speed, and picture quality (once post processed) the DReb is much better.

3. Much better AF and MF capabilities - Yes, there is no shutter lag on the DReb, and manual focus is by turning a ring on the lens again - not the hard to control MF on the Gx cameras

4. Availability of longer zoom lens - you don't have to get extra lenses right away. I still have only the kit lens, and so far I have felt no need for a longer lens. That will change once Spring and Summer come around and I go hiking in the mountains again. PS - I am looking at the Tokina 24-200mm ATX. Sharpness seems to be a little better than other zooms in this range.

Comparing the DReb kit lens to the G2 lens, they are for all practical purposes the same. 6x4s and 5x7s I can see no difference. Larger enlargements I can see a difference, but that is due to the greater 6.3 mp resolution not the lens. Keep in mind that the DReb does less in camera processing such as sharpening, color saturation and contrast, so right out of the camera the pictures will look worse from the DReb than the Gx. Also keep in mind in the extra lenses you are looking at that the difference between 3.5 aperture and 2.8 is only about half an F stop. For all practical purposes NO difference. In low light where a 3.5 lens fails you will not be able to take it off and put on a 2.8 lens and everything will be brighter and be able to take the picture. Truth is you will be hard pressed to see any difference between 2.8 and 3.5.

The only thing that is better with the G2 is the smaller size and the pivoting LCD screen. For well lit, fairly static pictures where shutter lag will not interfere and the ISO can be kept down to 50 or 100, the G2 or G3 can't be beat. In fact I'm keeping my G2, and I still use it occasionally.

Now as far as waiting until next year Spring for possible other cameras to come out - you do have the G3, so it's not like you will be missing pictures in the meantime, unless you are missing pictures because of the shortcomings of the G3 over the DReb. Of course prices will continue to slide down, and prices may fall quicker with competition from other low end DSLRs being available. It's up to you to decide if the time without the camera is worth the money savings. I decided I wanted the DReb to take pictures of my family during the Holidays and during my kid's High School basketball season which ends in March, so the new cameras out in Spring will mean I will have missed many of those pictures. I do miss a lot of action basketball pictures due to the G2s shutterlag and slow auto focus.
Darryl Hayashida

[geoff@rio]

As mentioned above do not underestimate the standard 50mm f1.8 the cheapest in the EOS range and certainly one of the best.

[pglamb]

I've just recently made my mind up about my initial foray into the world of DSLR. Here's what I chose:
D10
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

Total cost $2632.51

I've spent a lot of time reading forums like this one (as I'm sure you have) and this seems like a good initial setup.

[Man-Fai Wong]

dnhayashida wrote:
I own a G2 and a DReb. I have had the G2 for about 2 years and the DReb for 1 1/2 months. Prior to that I used Nikon SLR film cameras for 32 years.

Going over your reasons for thinking about going with a DSLR:


Darryl,

Thanks for such a thorough reply. I do have a couple thoughts.


Achieving focus lock in dim light is much better on the DReb. With the onboard flash it strobes a few low power flashes to get focus lock and with an external flash like the 420ex the DReb (unlike the Gx series cameras) uses the flash's red focus assist lamp.

What if I don't want to use flash in some situations? How does the DRebel's AF perform then?

This is of significance to me since I do want to shoot in low light w/out flash. I don't mean extremely dark situations, but quite low light situations like at a school play or a jazz club or something like that. Basically, I'm wondering about situations where one would need to use ISO1600 for shooting w/out flash.

I was under the impression that the AF should still work fine. Am I wrong?

Comparing the DReb kit lens to the G2 lens, they are for all practical purposes the same. 6x4s and 5x7s I can see no difference. Larger enlargements I can see a difference, but that is due to the greater 6.3 mp resolution not the lens.

That's very good to know. Thanks.

Also keep in mind in the extra lenses you are looking at that the difference between 3.5 aperture and 2.8 is only about half an F stop. For all practical purposes NO difference. In low light where a 3.5 lens fails you will not be able to take it off and put on a 2.8 lens and everything will be brighter and be able to take the picture. Truth is you will be hard pressed to see any difference between 2.8 and 3.5.

I don't doubt the truth about comparing f2.8 to f3.5. Situations are probably rare enough for the .6-.7EV difference to be that imporant. But a good f/2.8 lens stays f2.8 for the entire range though while many f/3.5 lenses end up at f/5.6 for the tele end. And for longer focal lengths, I'd think it becomes more important unless one is using a tripod.

Still, I will keep your point in mind and approach it accordingly so I don't end up overspending for what I don't really need. I might end up deciding I don't need an f/2.8 zoom lens for the middle range and even consider going w/ a larger zoom range, but maybe not quite as large as the 24-200mm you're looking at. In that case, I might consider the Tamron 24-135mm instead for similar price as the 28-75mm f/2.8.

The only thing that is better with the G2 is the smaller size and the pivoting LCD screen. For well lit, fairly static pictures where shutter lag will not interfere and the ISO can be kept down to 50 or 100, the G2 or G3 can't be beat. In fact I'm keeping my G2, and I still use it occasionally.

Yeah, I'm actually quite happy w/ the G3 for that kind of shooting, except the DoF issue. And if I sell the G3, I would miss the LCD for odd/interesting POV shots that I often enjoy.

Now as far as waiting until next year Spring for possible other cameras to come out - you do have the G3, so it's not like you will be missing pictures in the meantime, unless you are missing pictures because of the shortcomings of the G3 over the DReb.

I think I can definitely hold out until spring for a number of reasons. The cold weather is one, and tax time and bonus $ time are 2 more. :D If I buy now, I probably won't get as many opps to test out the camera and learn what I need anyway. Certainly too close to the holidays now also. And waiting for a little competition is a good thing me thinks. But I probably wouldn't wait beyond spring though. In the meantime, I just keep shooting w/ the G3 and keep studying up on info about the DRebel (and whatever else I can) before putting down the $$$.

It's up to you to decide if the time without the camera is worth the money savings. I decided I wanted the DReb to take pictures of my family during the Holidays and during my kid's High School basketball season which ends in March, so the new cameras out in Spring will mean I will have missed many of those pictures. I do miss a lot of action basketball pictures due to the G2s shutterlag and slow auto focus.

Yeah, I think I would do the same too if I were you. You definitely need the better focus performance more than I do. In my case, the kids are not yet old enough for such important extracurricular events where I must have the better focus performance. I can get by w/ the G3's prefocus/MF combo for the most part even for candid shots -- and a little bounce flash goes a long way of course. For example, here's a candid (series) I took w/out flash -- about as good as I can get for candid w/out flash (and keeping ISO reasonable):

http://www.pbase.com/image/22964508

But my daughter (the dancing queen :D) will have a dance recital thing coming up in June when she will be all of 6 years old. :D And I will want to have a DSLR for that me thinks although that's not the main reason I'm going DSLR -- those events will still be few and far between given their ages. :D Here's an example of the Dancing Queen shot w/ bounce flash: :D

http://www.pbase.com/image/22999277

Again, thanks much for your thoughtful advice.

_Man_

[Man-Fai Wong]

pglamb wrote:
I've just recently made my mind up about my initial foray into the world of DSLR. Here's what I chose:
D10
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

Total cost $2632.51

I've spent a lot of time reading forums like this one (as I'm sure you have) and this seems like a good initial setup.

Hmmm... Hadn't thought about a 28-135 w/ IS. The IS would probably offset the slower speeds at f5.6 -- the spec at B&H suggests that much. And then, I might feel less need to add a 70-200 f/4 since I'm not so sure I'd need to go out that far, except on rare occasions, anyway.

Do you find the 28-135 IS yielding very good results? PhotoZone.com rates it a "good" at 3.25, which is not too far behind the Tamron 24-135 (w/out IS), and price is not that much more. Would sacrifice a little on the wide end, but probably fine for me since I would still want a separate wideangle lens regardless anyway -- and the kit lens would probably be fine for that at first. And then, maybe add the very popular 50 f/1.8 like everyone else.

This now looks much more affordable.

Thanks for sharing your choices w/ me.

geoff@rio wrote:
As mentioned above do not underestimate the standard 50mm f1.8 the cheapest in the EOS range and certainly one of the best.

Hmmm... Just checked B&H, and the 50 f/1.8 is actually only $65(!). :D Looks too inexpensive to pass up if I get the 28-135 IS.

Thanks.

_Man_

[nosquare2003]

To remind you, the IS is to avoid camera shake (approx. 2 stops), but not to "freeze" subject's movement. I believe that you should have known already.

[DNHayashida]

Man-Fai Wong wrote:

What if I don't want to use flash in some situations? How does the DRebel's AF perform then?

This is of significance to me since I do want to shoot in low light w/out flash. I don't mean extremely dark situations, but quite low light situations like at a school play or a jazz club or something like that. Basically, I'm wondering about situations where one would need to use ISO1600 for shooting w/out flash.

I was under the impression that the AF should still work fine. Am I wrong?


No, you are not wrong, the DReb does focus well in low ambient light situations. I just took a few pictures of a Christmas tree lit only by the tree lights at 1600. The picture came out dark of course, but the focus locked on right away.
Darryl