Digital SLR's

[XRe]

Dave

I'm looking to get my wife a smaller camera for back-up/casual (she's just replaced her broken Reble XS with a 5D). What's up with the G10 vs. the G11, I know it's not all about MP's but why would they go from 14 to 10?

In a word... noise. The G11 has bigger pixel sites, which means they gather more light. This allows the G11 to have a one stop better noise profile than the G10. Unfortunately, it still seems to suck (relatively speaking) at ISO 400 or above, so it doesn't actually buy you anything... Either camera would be a good choice - the G10 isn't going to be available for much longer, though, so...

[Patrick Sweeney]

G10 vs. G11: noise control and low-light capability. The more you crowd photosites onto a sensor, the smaller they get, and the more noise you have to deal with. Canon is primo at controlling noise, but the fewer photosites on the G11 means the individual 'sites can be larger and thus have less noise in the final image.

That's the two-minute explanation. More than that can take an hour, an optical engineering lecture, and a quick brush-up on the mathematics of noise control at high amplification rates.

Nik, I've got a kit lens (the 18-55 off my DR) that doesn't match my 17-40L, but is well above average. Unless someone is a working pro, I really think kit lenses take a big undeserved rap.

[XRe]

Nik, I've got a kit lens (the 18-55 off my DR) that doesn't match my 17-40L, but is well above average. Unless someone is a working pro, I really think kit lenses take a big undeserved rap.

That was kind of my point, too... They get the job done, at least nowadays... The newer EF-S kit lenses (for Canon) and the Nikon equivalents seem to do quite a good job (not the go-to lens for a pro, but I know several pros who actually use them for certain things, like lightweight walkabout lenses). For the stated purpose of the camera, these lenses will do just as good a job as a pricier lens...

[John2A]

I guess what I would like to be able to do now and long term.

Now Close ups of baby girl. 1-2 yrs action as she learns to walk and move about. Probably also in this time frame maybe shooting some matches and wildlife. 3-5 yrs continue with baby girl as she gets older, catching events such as beach Disney and possible other travle locations.

When I was into photography it was more portrait type work, family friends etc. Now I am looking to maybe get back into that. I like being able to document everday life so lenses would be more important and the speed of the camera. I want to be able to catch as much as I can with one device. I played with both again today and I am leaning towards the Nikon just like the fit and function button locations more than the cannon. I have large hands and stumpy fingers. So I like that I could add the extended battery at some point if needed.

The lense that comes with the kit is this one: AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Lens Would that work for the short term? Or is there something that would work better as a "kit" I can get the body for 899.99 and the Kit with lens for 1199.99. Just looking to make the best decission for the short term that will allow me to add more detail etc in the long term.

Thanks again for all the advice.

John

[Nik Habicht]

Nik, I've got a kit lens (the 18-55 off my DR) that doesn't match my 17-40L, but is well above average. Unless someone is a working pro, I really think kit lenses take a big undeserved rap.

Sometimes Canon includes good lenses in their kits --- including offering the midrange 28-105 on several kits back in the film days....

The 18-55 could well fall into that category, I have no real world experience with it....

And, working pros would for the most part agree with the "It's the Indian, not the arrow" concept. I know of professional golf photographers who have had images published with point and shoot cameras that they couldn't shoot with SLRs --- because an SLR makes too much noise during the golfer's swing....

[Patrick Sweeney]

And as "kit" lenses go, that Nikon is rated rather highly. If that's what they bundle with it, go for it.

[Punished]

I say get the kit lens. You will find the kit bundled with the body will be a cheaper option then buying a body + a quality lens.

With that stated. I am coming from a 23 yearolds view point who is pretty much broke. If you have the cash to blast away, then by all means. Buy the body and look at a good lens around $400-700 range or higher if you want. But to me, the kit lens still produces great photos. Just remember, the lens does not make a great shot, the photographer does.

To add:

So if you go with 50D body only: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5804...LR_Digital.html $984.00

Then possibly look at the 70-200mm F4L lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1831...us.html#reviews $619.00

Gives you a total of: $1603.00

You could always look at the 18-55 3.5 IS as well.which is only $170.

or get the 50D with kit lens for. $1152.00 Canon EOS 50D SLR Digital Camera Kit with Canon 28-135mm Lens http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5804...LR_Digital.html

but here is where the problem comes up. Any camera body you choose will work great. But the lens is what will get you. Reason being that unless you have a good idea of what distance you will be photographing from it is hard to recommend a lens. Buying the body separate I suggested the 70-200 which will give you a ton of distance but not so much close range. If you get the kit lens with the 28-135 you will have pretty much any distance you want covered for the time being. As your child grows you can decide if you need more range in your photo or if you just want to bump up to the same range but in a L glass. This is a dilemma that every photographer goes through. You have to figure out which lens you need to cover a certain aspect. It is almost impossible to find a lens to do everything you want it to.

For myself I plan to finish off my lens set to only include: Canon L's from 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 with a possible 10-22 in there as well.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Punished

[Nik Habicht]

This is a dilemma that every photographer goes through. You have to figure out which lens you need to cover a certain aspect. It is almost impossible to find a lens to do everything you want it to.

This doesn't need to be a dilemma --- there's plenty of photo talent here to help with recommendations for your intended usage....

[Punished]

This is a dilemma that every photographer goes through. You have to figure out which lens you need to cover a certain aspect. It is almost impossible to find a lens to do everything you want it to.

This doesn't need to be a dilemma --- there's plenty of photo talent here to help with recommendations for your intended usage....

Yes, but with 20 people comes 20 opinions which maybe if we are lucky a group of us can all agree on the same lens choice for him.