Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by ToPpS

inkista is definitely i think, showing that he is indeed very knowledgeable in this department. ...

Errr... she. Don't worry, even those engines that say they can figure out if the author's male/female get it wrong, too. Geekness transcends gender.

Originally Posted by mtlost

If possible, can someone just browse through their website and see if they will be able to support me with all the stuff I'll need in the future? Its just because I'm still not sure what to look at.

Ummm.. that's kind of hard, because you haven't told us what you're thinking of shooting in future. But I'd say Nikon or Canon, and you'll probably be just fine.

I see there is mixed feelings about IS in the body and IS in the lense. For a noob, what will be the best option? Taking into consideration that I will for the first year or so just use the kit lense.

If you go Canon or Nikon, you're stuck with stabilization in the lens. It's only the other makes that have in-body stabilization in the SLR range. This is the biggest selling point of the other makes if you don't need the lenses/accessories that Canon and Nikon offer. If you really are going to be doing nothing but snapshots, portraits, and landscapes, you may do just fine with any body that meets your pricepoint. It's when you suddenly find you have to shoot a high school basketball game in the gym that you'll get stuck.

[ToPpS]

Well IS/VR is basically there to prevent blurry images due to camera shake that usually occurs in low light conditions when hand held. Still if you are shooting in low light conditions, you can always fall back to the old tried and tested tripod. Controversial as that comment my be :P

You're right, in SA it's no use to do a straight exchange rate conversion on prices. SA is scarily over priced compared with the UK, and it's even worse when compared to the US market. Ouch!

The shop seems to have a good selection of lenses and accessories and his prices seem to be very, very good when compared to a few other outlets that i've checked.... So they should be able to support you in future, no problem.

Trading up to a dslr is only the first of many future photographic purchases that you are going to make over the next couple of years. That's a fact So yes it does pay to take the time to choose the best option for you now rather than 1 year from now.

I didn't see the Pentax offered on the site but i assume that you're leaning towards the Canon and Nikon??

Based on price and the lenses in your price bracket, i'd be tempted to recommend the Nikon D60 + 18-55mm VR Kit especially with the free training (as a "noob") and it's within R400 of the Canon EOS 1000D + 18-55mm IS Kit. Both are IS/VR enabled options in your price range and the two lenses are almost on a par.

Lets see what the others have to say

[crunch]

Also try www.outdoorphotoshop.co.za. They sometimes have very good specials. And depending where you are in SA, you can always collect (they're in Pretoria).

[ToPpS]

Originally Posted by inkista

Errr... she. Don't worry, even those engines that say they can figure out if the author's male/female get it wrong, too. Geekness transcends gender.

Inkista, please accept my humblest apology

[krypticide]

If price is a concern, I would go with Pentax. In-body stabilization can be used with ALL lenses, even ones from the 1950s. With Canon or Nikon, you have to pay each time for IS, and it is very costly.

Pentax has the best features for the money, hands down. You won't find other manufacturers with weather sealing in sub-$1000 cameras. However, for sports, where you absolutely need fast FPS and autofocus, I wouldn't recommend Pentax. But, then again, sports photography is for people who have money to spend...

Here's a nice example of what you can do with Pentax: I bought a 135mm f/3.5 lens (fully manual) made in 1971 from eBay for $45 (considered expensive!). I was able to shoot night shots with it at as low as 1/5th of a second. You can easily build a nice collection of old lenses, all with stabilization, for cheap.

A good source of info, and lens reviews, can be found at pentaxforums.com.

[Lee Sacrey]

I am new to this whole thing but lets see if I can help. I remember when I was buying my Sony A100. The first thing I considered was that I had Minolta equipment which would already work on the A100. That meant I could use it right away with less cost then buying another brand. If you have no equipment and are starting from scratch it is tougher. Make sure you use online review sites like DP Review and Camera Labs, they quite often help. For example, Camera Labs has a percentage rating they give each Camera. They gave the D60 80%, the D40X 79%, the 1000D 82%, the K200D 86% and the A200 85%. It maybe help to read what they have to say and watch their video reviews online. After that go look at and handle each Camera to see what feels right to you. Pay close attention to the features you like as these have different offerings. Either way I don't think you can go wrong with any of these. Good Luck.

One question, why did you not consider the Olympus E520? I think I would consider that as well. Their 14 - 42 mm kit lens maybe the best kit lens in this class of lenses and Camera Labs gave it 87%.

[Lee Sacrey]

Me Again,

Just a couple other things to consider. Look at what to focal length of the kit lenses are and consider what you want to shot with them. I believe that Sony will offer a 18 - 70 mm and the others offer 18 - 55 mm. That may make a difference to you. I would also consider trying to get a Camera body with like a 18 - 200 mm as it would offer a greater focal length to allow you to shot more with less. Remember the all these Camera use a factor for focal length so an 18 mm - 55 mm will actually have a differ focal length than 18 - 55. The Canon and Nikon convert at 1.6 x (so 18 - 55 mm is actual 28.8 mm to 88 mm) the Pentax and Sony convert at 1.5 x (Pentax 18 - 55 mm is 27 mm to 82.5 mm) (Sony's 18 - 70 mm would be 27 mm to 105 mm). If you do consider the Olympus as I suggested earlier it converts at 2 x (Olympus 14 - 42 mm is actually 28 mm to 84 mm making it about equal to the others). Also as a current Sony user I will make the following comment. Some Camera stores seem to have issues with Sony. They say they are not a traditional Camera manufacturer. Remember that Sony took over Konica Minolta's Camera division and they also make the sensors for Nikon. Again I think you will be happy with any of your choices.

[crunch]

Originally Posted by Lee Sacrey

The Canon and Nikon convert at 1.6 x

Actually, only Canon is 1.6x. Nikon is also 1.5x (like Pentax and Sony).

[ToPpS]

Originally Posted by Lee Sacrey

Me Again,
The Canon and Nikon convert at 1.6 x (so 18 - 55 mm is actual 28.8 mm to 88 mm) the Pentax and Sony convert at 1.5 x (Pentax 18 - 55 mm is 27 mm to 82.5 mm) (Sony's 18 - 70 mm would be 27 mm to 105 mm).

Using the "crop factor" of 1.6/5 is not always as straight forward as that..... Forum post

Plus the kit lenses that come with the Nikon are the DX lenses that have been designed to work with the digital sensor and therefore retain their printed focal length. I think it's the same with the pentax lens as well.

[Lee Sacrey]

I may be mistaken on the focal length. I did have ever look at what some of the reviewers had said and I assumed they knew more than I did. I did double check on the Nikon and you are correct it is 1.5 x. Camera labs did state however that the focal length on the DX lens still have the factor apply. Which confuses me a little. If you still have to factor the 1.5 x than why wouldn't those lenses work on a full frame DSLR? I believe that Sony states if you use a DT lens (the DT lens are digital or designed for the DSLR's) on the new A900 it still crops due to it being a digital lens. Can someone explain this for me?