I know some people fall heavily into either the Canon or the Nikon camp but basically never both. I've been reading on and along so would hardly consider myself to be knowledgeable. I thought I remembered reading though that while the Canon and Nikon bodies are about the same cost, a difference will be noticed down the road in the price of lenses, with Nikon's being a bit pricier. If you don't buy bunches of lenses then it isn't going to matter of course, but am I remember it correctly or no?

Thanks,
LC

Jekus, whether you go for the Nikon D5100 or the Canon Rebel (as it's called in the US), there are versions of both that come with a kit lens which will be general purpose enough and cover most usage scenarios adequately that she will be able to get going right away. Buying specialist lenses would come later.

Another option for a lens would just be to buy either the Canon or Nikon 35mm f/1.8. This is a more restrictive option in that it does not zoom and has a fixed focal length, but it will provide lots of creative options in terms of aperture, it will be sharper than the kit lens by some margin, and it can be argued that having the fixed focal length will help improve photographic technique by limiting options and forcing more thought to be given to composition and optimal position etc. The 35mm will have roughly the same field of view as standard human vision (not including peripheral vision). Either Nikon or Canon versions are pretty inexpensive.

On balance, I'd go with the kit lens and then let het decide how to proceed from there.

Also, before reading too much Ken Rockwell, it needs to be pointed out that he is incredibly opinionated, and some of his views are just ridiculous. While a lot of what he says has merit, don't take it as gospel.

I think you can get a canon T3 dslr + kit + 55-250mm IS for about $600 on amazon. It should apply the discount on the tele lens during checkout.

Am I getting this HDR thing (I know, so 2009) right?

Are there any good services that do the entire photo processing procedure for you? As in they select your top photos, crop/edit them, upload/tag them, etc.

The problem is everyone might have artistic differences in where to crop and how to edit.

Sorry to open with a nitpick, but there is more than one APS sensor size. For instance, a few Canon models have an APS-H sensor, which has a 1.3 crop factor. Your D80 has an APS-C size sensor, with a 1.5 crop factor. Strangely enough, Canon's Rebel series are also designated APS-C even though their crop factor is 1.6. None of these match the exact size for the original APS specifcations.

I can't really comment on Sigma, Tamron or Tokina tele-zoom lenses, other than to say they will generally be less expensive and produce lower quality results.

Nikon does't make a 100-300mm lens. If you want a zoom lens that covers 300mm, your choices are:
AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
AF VR Zoom-NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED
AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II

None of these is very fast, so will be of limited use indoors or in a forest.

I don't see much point in you buying the 28-300 mm. It is intended as a walking around lens for a fullframe body. It isn't wide enough for you to use as a walking around lens on a DX body, and it overlaps most of the range of your other lens. Also, it has rather cheap construction.

The 55-300 mm DX lens is an inexpensive and lightweight ($430, 1.1 lbs) solution, but will not give full frame coverage. This is only a concern if you think you will upgrade to a full-frame body. The lens has good optics, but is slow to focus, so is not good for moving subjects.

The 70-300 mm is only a bit heavier and a bit more expensive (1.6 lbs, $540), but will cover a full frame. It is quite a good mid-value lens except for a tendency to produce noticeable lateral chromatic aberration at long focal lengths. This can be corrected in post processing, and is automaticaly corrected by some Nikon bodies (but perhaps not the D80). It is a bit sharper and much faster-focussing than the 55-300 mm DX.

The 80-400 is older, heavier, slower and more expensive than the 70-300, but it does get to 400mm.

At $7k, the 200-400 mm is probably out of your price range. It is also huge (14.5" long, 7 pounds).

You could also consider a prime telephoto lens. The AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED is probably the only one with low enough price and weight. (3.2lbs, $1.4k)

When considering wildlife lenses, you need to think about how much you are willing to pay, how much size and weight you want to carry, what sort of image quality you want, how fast a lens you need, and how rugged a lens you need.

Relatively cheap and lightweight lenses will have lower image quality and lower build quality. They might not withstand the rigours of extended back-country hiking.

If your subject is not under canopy, then you can probably get away with slower than f/4. If your subjects include birds, small mammals or dangerous animals, you might want an EFL of 600+ mm (a 300mm lens on your DX body has only 450mm EFL).

Nikon's 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR II lens is one of the very best DSLR lenses available. Incredibly sharp even almost wide open, almost no distortion or aberrations. It is sharper in the centre than the Canon equivalent, but sharpness drops off faster towards the edges. On a DX body, this will not be a problem. When it first came out, there was controvery about its greater than usual loss of focal length at minimum focussing distance. For wildlife shots, this is also not a problem. The lens is not light or cheap (3.4 lbs, $2.4K).

I'm a big fan of walkabout or travel lenses. I take more shots with my 18-200mm than any other lens. However this sort of lens is a compromise. It comes with noticeable distortion, less sharpness, and lower build quality. One signficant problem with cheaper super-zoom lenses can be the possibility of sucking dust into the camera body. You get this sort of lens for portabilty and versatility, but not for image quality.

See my comments above re the 28-300.

There is yet another approach: use a teleconverter with a fast mid-range zoom. There are 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x teleconverters. They increase the focal length by the stated factor, while slowing the lens by 1, 1.5 and 2 stops, respectively. They are relatively light and inexpensive. Teleconverters are not compatible with all lenses. They generally do not work with inexpnsive lenses or DC lenses.

I bought the 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR II lens for indoor stage events and sports. I can also use it for forest animals. When shooting wildlife in the open, I add a 1.7x teleconverter. This effectively gives me a fast-focussing 119-340 mm f/4.4 VR II lens. On my DX body, that's a maximum EFL of 510 mm.

Does it work? You be the judge:



Except for cropping, that's the JPEG that came out of the camera. There was no other post-processing.

This combination isn't quite long enough for serious birding, and you won't often get this close to a wild eagle. The 2.0x teleconverter combined with this lens gives 140-400 mm f/4.8, with a max EFL on DX of 600 mm.

Thanks a lot for that post. The 70-300 sounds like it might be a good choice for me. Landscapes and more intimate nature scenes are what really seem to call to me. I enjoy shooting wildlife, but it's so hit or miss. Also I know you need to start getting into really big expensive lenses to do it right. But I certainly will try to get the best pic of anything I see.

It is really hard to make these comparisons, because the Canon and Nikon products are not identical.

Sure it is possible to build a set of Canon lenses and bodies that will be cheaper than "comparable" Nikon equipment. But you can also build a cheaper "comparable" Nikon set. Most probably, the cheaper set will produce lower quality images, have lower build quality and be less flexible to use.

And what does "comparable" mean, anyway. You won't find any comparison set that has identical features, ease of use and image quality.

For example, compare the Canon EOS Rebel T3i (600D) with the Nikon D5100. Both are the second from bottom of the maker's current models. They have the same list price with kit lens. The Canon has more megapixels, more control buttons, better video, better LCD screen, mirror lock-up and an optional vertical grip battery pack. However, the Nikon has a better signal-to-noise ratio, less noise at high ISO speeds, better metering, better exposure control, better colour rendition, better focussing and a better-resolving kit lens.

In short, the Canon is easier to use, and the Nikon has better image quality. If you want equal image quality from a Canon camera system, you will have to spend more money. If you want equal flexibility of use from a Nikon, you will have to spend more money.

If you calculated the average price of a Canon lens, you'd probably find it was lower than the average price of a Nikon lens. Perhaps this is what leads some people to conclude that when you buy a lot of lenses, Canon systems are cheaper that Nikon systems. But if you calculated the average image quality produced by Nikon lenses you'd probably find it was higher than the average quality of images from Canon lenses. That's just a reflection of Canon having a wider selection of cheap lenses. That doesn't mean that all Nikon lenses are better than the comparable Canon lens. Some Canon lenses are clearly better. Some Nikon lenses are clearly better. Usually the better ones cost more, but not always. Which brand is better value? Who knows? It depends on what you value in a camera system, and everybody's needs are different.

Both Canon and Nikon are giants in the DSLR market. Both make cameras and lenses that are generally superior to the other players in that market. They tend to leap-frog each other with innovations, and they have different marketing strategies. As a result it is not reasonable to generalize that one make is better or better value. It depends on the user's needs relative to where each company is in its development cycle. I bought my first DSLR when my oldest daughter was about to get married. At that time, in my price range, I could get better image quality from a Nikon body than from a Canon body, and Nikon had a lens that better suited my needs. If I had been buying my first DSLR 18 months later, I would have bought Canon. Today, I would buy Nikon, but that doesn't mean I think everybody buying a first DSLR today should buy a Nikon. For some people, a Canon would be a better choice.

If spending less money on a set of 6-10 lenses is important to you, don't buy Canon or Nikon, buy Tamron. Just don't claim they are as good as a Canon or Nikon set.

a few from recent travels

Those are pretty sweet, especially the red lake one.

great shots kooox

Very nice Kooox. The last one is def my fav - love it! It's so awesome how the horizon simply disappears, leaving this wash of pastel for a really serene, low-contrast background. It just gives so much more impact to the silhouettes. Really nice job. If I'm being nitty I would have retouched a couple of little distractions out near the horizon, and there's some lens/sensor dirt that's quite visible in the sky, but both are really easy fixes. Great stuff.

I'm in love with that last picture

I also like the last picture very much, but I think it would look even better in a panorama format, bumping up the contrast to bring out some more detail. Something like this maybe?



I'd print it and hang it on the wall if I were you.

If you don't have a problem getting too photoshopy I think this may make a more impactful picture.

thanks guys. been going through the last few pages, some amazing shots itt. absolutely love scratchys death valley shots! ha now I see those blurry abstract ones are yours too, awesome work man!
so many other great ones, love the wide angle stuff, fisheye lens definitely my next purchase.
Definitely planning on retouching and printing some, it's just that I have so many I sometimes don't know where to begin... That last shot should be a good start though, I like the idea of just the two people and panorama format.
If anyone wants a non re-sized version just let me know.

If you promise not to crop or boost the contrast/saturation at all - then yes please - would love one

I'd like one as well

How should i crop this? Any other advice on how to improve it, looking at doing some more mid-climb photos. Any suggestions on a mid-level (no more than $500) wide/semi-wide? I've got a Nikon D90 with an 18-55 kit, 50mm prime and 55-200 POS i still carry around for some reason but would really like to get a proper wide angle for my trip to Patagonia

I think it's fine as far as crop. The trees add a sense of height. For the rest try bumping up the contrast/shadows some.

Maybe try rotating 90 degrees counter clockwise? If I **** my head to the side and look at it from that angle, it certainly makes me feel more vertiguous.

Edit: apparently it's a no-no to c0ck one's head to the side around here.

cropped from a bit bigger frame so I have a some wiggle room as far as composition goes. really unsatisfied with where the head falls on the horizon but mosquitoes were goin crazy.

My question- I wanted to add contrast with the shadow on the backside of the head so I used the burn tool, though it seemed like it did some desaturation in the process.

is there a better way to go about this type of spot adjustment?

me
my camera
perched on a grad-all i rented for the shoot
connected to my laptop via usb for tethering
with about 20 doodads hanging off it (pocketwizards, remotes)

for a dusk exterior architectural shot


Untitled by mike kelley / mpkelley.com, on Flickr