Travel Photography - Picking a DSLR...advice needed

Hi! I'm looking to move up from a point and shoot, and am looking to buy an entry level DSLR. I've been looking at the Nikon D60, Canon XSI and am just now learning about the Sony, Olympus and Pentax models.

Here's some background:

* I'm primarily going to be taking action/sports shots (my husband completes in cyclocross, and I'm tired of taking pictures in which he's just barely in the frame)

* I probably need some sort of image stabilization, because I don't have the steadiest of hands

* I will be shooting in a lot of damp conditions, if that makes a difference (his cycling is primarily in Portland, OR in the fall & winter -- last weekend I was shooting in a light drizzle)

* I'm going to be traveling with the camera between BUR and PDX on primarily RJs with limited overhead space

* I've never used an SLR of any kind before

* I'd like to keep my total initial purchase under $700 if I can.

With that in mind, I think I'm down to 2 choices (but I'm open to other suggestions): the Olympus E520 dual lens kit, and the Canon XSI with kit lens, plus I think with that I might buy the EF 50mm f/1.8 lens.

Some things I'm not sure about: Olympus is on the four-thirds standard - is that something to be worried about? I'm not really sure what the practical implications of that are, particularly w/ the aspect ratio. Also, I looked at the differences between the E520 and E620 and didn't see anything that would meaningfully impact what I'm looking to do, and it's a big price difference. I also can't find a local Olympus dealer that has it in stock, so I'd be buying online w/o seeing it, which makes me a little nervous. I like the smaller size of the Olympus, plus people seem to really like the kit lenses, so it sounds like a good value. On the other hand, I'm unsure about buying a less common brand. I think that (together with something I've read that suggests that the XSI is faster for action shots) has me leaning towards the XSI, but I'm not sure that's a good enough reason. Finally, I posted on a photo board (which led to a lot of recommendations of $1500+ camera bodies), but a couple of people have recommended the Pentax K-20D for its weather sealing and performance in low light.

As you can see, I'm a little overwhelmed for choice! I should note that I am slightly flexible in price, meaning if there's a lens or some feature in a camera that would be useful, I can go up to $750-800, but not up to $2,000. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I can't help you decide but can add to your confusion. :p

In addition to the models you have mentioned, for your price point, I'd suggest taking a look at the Pentax 2000D (aka the Pentax Km.) It is entry-level and VERY easy to learn, very small and lightweight, quite inexpensive, feature rich and image-stabilized in the body so you can get stabilization using any lens ever made for the Pentax mount.

For a little more money, Pentax has just released the new Kx model which is a somewhat more advanced version of the Km. For a small, lightweight travel camera, it looks very good.

The disadvantage of Pentax is that you are limited to Pentax-mount lenses and cannot use the myriad Canon or Nikon lenses and accessories. But, Pentax makes very good lenses and to save money there you can find third party lenses from Tamron and Sigma.

I have been a Canon guy since 1970 but for the price/feature mix in an entry-level camera, I am impressed with the Pentax Km/Kx. I have had the opportunity to test one and am pleased with the images I got.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Pentax/pentax_kx.asp

Have you considered the Canon T1i? It's less than $800 and offers a lot more than the XSi.

Sony as a 2 lense kit for the Alpha 230 series and $599 seems to be the normal street price (you may be able to get it for less). Built-in image stabilisation (in the camera, not the lense). You can buy and use used Minolta Maxxum lenses.

The Nikon D5000 is a tad above the D60 and the D3000 may be a direct replacement of the D60 and can fit within your budget. The 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR kit lenses should be able to work in cycling events.

I have the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 lens which is nice lens for low light conditions.

* I'm primarily going to be taking action/sports shots (my husband completes in cyclocross, and I'm tired of taking pictures in which he's just barely in the frame)

* I probably need some sort of image stabilization, because I don't have the steadiest of hands

before you start spending money, there are a number of tricks you can try with a compact digicam.

the first one is half-press the shutter so the camera will focus at a particular place (finish line?) and calculate the exposure. that's where most of the lag occurs. then wait for him to be at that place and take the photo. it's easier than it sounds. depending on the camera, you might be able to take several photos without it needing to recalculate each one.

another option when you know where he will be is use manual focus and if the light isn't changing you can use manual exposure. with both of those preset, you essentially eliminate the lag. that's a little more limiting than half-pressing but you only need to do it once per session. the drawback is that if conditions change, you won't be ready.

for steadiness, you can get a small tripod or monopod, or just brace the camera on a tree or fence or something stable. sports photography tends to use faster shutter speeds where stabilization isn't that important.

that said, a dslr is going to be faster and you won't need to worry about presetting anything. nikon and canon have the widest selection of lenses and accessories and they're very easy to find, both in stores and even garage sales. you can also rent lenses (and cameras for that matter), and most rental companies carry only nikon and canon.

how far away will you be? how fast is the action? what kind of light will there be? the answers to those questions will probably make a big difference in which lenses you get.

* I will be shooting in a lot of damp conditions, if that makes a difference (his cycling is primarily in Portland, OR in the fall & winter -- last weekend I was shooting in a light drizzle)

low end bodies aren't generally weather sealed, nor are the lenses. for protection, use a large plastic bag for the camera and a filter on the front of the lens. they make special camera covers just for this purpose if you want something pre-made.

With that in mind, I think I'm down to 2 choices (but I'm open to other suggestions): the Olympus E520 dual lens kit, and the Canon XSI with kit lens, plus I think with that I might buy the EF 50mm f/1.8 lens.

the 50mm lens is a decent lens for the money but it isn't all that practical for sports photography.

Some things I'm not sure about: Olympus is on the four-thirds standard - is that something to be worried about?

olympus 4/3rds has a smaller sensor (2x crop factor) versus 1.6x for canon and 1.5x for nikon. all things being equal, a larger sensor is better, but things are never equal. furthermore, the olympus cameras are not really all that much smaller than the smallest nikon or canon cameras, so there's not really any advantage in size/weight which is why they came up with the micro-4/3rds format.

Forget image stabilization, it's not going to do you any good in sports photography. What image stabilization lets you do is get away with a lower shutter speed than would otherwise be called for--but that's just going to cause motion blur.

I got a good example of that this spring in China--there was a butterfly flitting around I wanted a shot of. Getting a close-up of a flitting butterfly is a pain--with the lens zoomed enough (I've got quite a zoom range on my lens) I finally got a good close-up. Despite inadequate light the bush is in sharp focus as is the body of the butterfly because I have a stabilized lens. It's wings, however--they flapped during the shot and are blurred to the point of not being all that noticeable--it's more like a butterfly body with some discoloration around it.

Not getting the frame centered on him is *NOT* a matter for stabilization, anyway. Any automatic camera will have a lag from when you push the button to when the shot fires. While it's not all that noticeable in most cases it's quite enough to throw off the timing when aiming at a moving target.

There are two basic answers to this:

If the target is moving sideways relative to you track it rather than aim at a point. Since you are tracking the camera will remain aimed properly even though the lag in the trigger.

If the target is moving towards you you simply have to pick a point and have the camera completely ready to go. That either means manually focusing on that distance (something I have had to resort to when attempting to get a whale popping out of the water at sea world--the autofocus couldn't lock on through the spray fast enough to get the shot.) or preset it on something which will take the same focus and exposure as the true target.

Aim at your substitute target and press the trigger to the halfway point--practice as it takes some getting used to, expect many errant snaps before you learn the feel. The camera will focus and set the exposure and now will fire virtually instantly when you press the trigger the rest of the way. You will take the settings off your substitute, though--make sure it's a reasonable stand-in for the real target. While I've never needed to do this for moving targets (I've never taken a sports photo in my life) I have done it many, many times when I knew the light meter was going to misread or because aiming correctly would cause the autofocus to grab the wrong target.

Also check the cameras you are considering for whether they have a continuous mode. If they do--hold the trigger as your target passes. Most of the shots will be no good but so what if you take 10 instead of 1? It's not like you have to pay for film and developing for bad shots anymore. (Note: You will find *ALL* digital cameras have a limit on how many shots they can take in this mode before slowing down substantially--the camera gets ahead of the memory card and when the buffer is full it has to wait for the old stuff to get written before it will take more.)

Forget image stabilization, it's not going to do you any good in sports photography ...
IS has an on/off switch. The OP just might want to use the camera for something else besides fast sports photos. ;)

IS has an on/off switch. The OP just might want to use the camera for something else besides fast sports photos. ;)

She was presenting the problems with sports photography as a reason for IS.

Thanks everyone! Great ideas. I will definitely be trying the tips on getting better with the point and shoot in the meantime.

To answer a couple of questions -- I will be in a fixed point reasonably close to the action photographing. For most shots, I won't be more than a few feet away. I thought IS might be useful for sports, but I'm quickly learning that that's not important, and actually not useful or helpful for action shots. IS is probably a less important factor than I had thought, so I'm less concerned about it.

abmj-jr - I had been considering the Pentax, but ruled it out because they appear to be on the verge of getting rid of their DSLR line. That said, it is an attractive package for the price!

Thanks again -- keep the ideas coming!

... abmj-jr - I had been considering the Pentax, but ruled it out because they appear to be on the verge of getting rid of their DSLR line. ...
Where in the world did you get that??

There were some rumors awhile back that Pentax may be dropping out of the point & shoot market to concentrate on DSLRs but so far those are still rumors. I haven't seen anything to indicate they might drop DSLRs. On the contrary, Pentax is making efforts to move more into the pro-level DSLR arena. They have introduced 2 new designs in the last 6 months - the Kx entry-level and the K-7 high-end model. I don't think they are going anywhere.

I will be in a fixed point reasonably close to the action photographing. For most shots, I won't be more than a few feet away.
if you are a few feet away, any of the various kit lenses should suffice, at least initially.

abmj-jr - I had been considering the Pentax, but ruled it out because they appear to be on the verge of getting rid of their DSLR line. That said, it is an attractive package for the price!

it's not that pentax is planning on getting rid of their slr line, but that they might have to because they're facing intense competition from nikon, canon and sony. they are also not interested in full frame and their lens selection is more limited unless you want to get used lenses (the k-mount was very popular).

Where in the world did you get that??

Because Pentax is searching (so far unsuccessfully) for a bigger partner? Because their market share is small compared to Nikon, Canon and Sony? Because their CEO described them as a "small boat in a rough sea"

Buy a Nikon, Canon or Sony.

Because Pentax is searching (so far unsuccessfully) for a bigger partner? Because their market share is small compared to Nikon, Canon and Sony? Because their CEO described them as a "small boat in a rough sea"

Buy a Nikon, Canon or Sony.

and i would skip sony, because they will find some proprietary piece, and charge 10x true value

why you want a 50mm 1.8. this guy do twilight runs?

... Buy a Nikon, Canon or Sony.
I don't disagree with this. As I said, I have been a Canon guy for decades. Just be prepared to pay twice as much for a comparable kit.

Thanks! I'm starting to lean towards the XSi - I was with someone at my husband's regatta this morning who had one and was able to check it out. She was just using the kit lens and was happy with it, but if I were to get another lens, what should I get?

I'm headed to the chain-y camera shop today to at least get a feel for things. The only camera I've been able to handle in person is the XSi, so I'd like to hold the other entry-levels to see what feels best to me.

Thanks! I'm starting to lean towards the XSi - I was with someone at my husband's regatta this morning who had one and was able to check it out. She was just using the kit lens and was happy with it, but if I were to get another lens, what should I get?

i would start with a kit lens and see where you find it to be limiting. you say you're often close, so a longer lens might not help you much.

I'm headed to the chain-y camera shop today to at least get a feel for things. The only camera I've been able to handle in person is the XSi, so I'd like to hold the other entry-levels to see what feels best to me.

that's the most important thing. the camera should feel right in your hands and the buttons and controls easy to use.

it is also nice if one can intutively get the thing to function. i have no problem running a canon dslr.

we had a couple of olympus point and shoots, and although i shot thousands of photos with it, i never could get the thing to do what i wanted. the panasonic point and shoot (dmc-pz18) is very easy for me to get where i want to go.

the same is true of cell phones. i gave up on motorola, and just use nokia.

by all means find a place to try the camera.

i noticed in today's bestbuy that most dslr packages have been reduced $50 to $100. this is not the normal buildup to christmas.

Dear Mrs Buster,

With Canon or Nikon you can´t go wrong. You will have support, service, hundreds of forums to ask questions and you will pay a price a bit higher than with Pentax or Olympus for example.

The most important issue with DSLR´s and photography is not the camera, but the lenses. In the case of Canons, Rebel XSi, T1 or others will give you some differences (maybe most notably video and or larger LCD screens) but the BIG difference is lenses. If I follow your questions, i would save some money in the body and buy a better lens. This is what makes a photograph different. The kit lens (I have it, of course) sucks, when you start seeing the incredible change a good lens makes in photography.

So my piece of advice is, spend your money in a decent body and invest heavily in lenses.

Adios

I agree most with the above.

I am a pretty experienced photographer and I shoot with a Rebel XS. But, I have a collection of lenses including quite a few L-Series. I chose the XS because it can do everything I need it to do and it was the most comfortable for me in my hands and for traveling. Yes, I can use a 1D and love to shoot with one but carrying one around and handling one (female with small hands) is just a pain. 90% of my photos are while traveling so I have to carry the camera and lenses on my shoulder.

Anyway, why not an XS or a used Xt to start with? Both will take great photos if you take the time to learn to use them. And as for shooting sports, a huge part of what I shoot is auto racing events. Autocross, track days, Le Mans series, etc. I can get awesome shots of cars going 100MPH with my XS. Of course the higher level models are faster but unless you are shooting at professional levels and really know what you're looking at, you won't know the difference.

And as was asked, why the 50mm? It won't do you a bit of good for sports photos. I have it in my bag and it's really cool for some applications but useless in others.

Action shots

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2250/3555008388_5b305352d6.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3615/3460258303_5aa342b6c4.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3359/3554195705_dcca5de271.jpg


My equipment:

Canon Rebel XS

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

As you can see, I spent a reasonable amount on the body and had a lot of fun with lenses meaning I can shoot in just about any situation. I'm not limited by my lens selection. I do need to get a better telephoto but those are so expensive, I'm getting there.

For a true beginner, someone who has never used an SLR, the most important thing will be for you to learn how to use it. I see so many people who thrown money away buying high end DSLR's that they have no clue how to use and simply put them on auto and use only kit lenses and their photos are no better than what I could take with a point and shoot.

I am a Canon fan, obviously, but that doesn't mean the others are bad. It's just preference. Go look at all of the cameras, spend more than just a minute or two with each. Hold it, scroll through menus, see which one makes the most sense for you.

Dear Mrs Buster,

With Canon or Nikon you can´t go wrong. You will have support, service, hundreds of forums to ask questions and you will pay a price a bit higher than with Pentax or Olympus for example.

The most important issue with DSLR´s and photography is not the camera, but the lenses. In the case of Canons, Rebel XSi, T1 or others will give you some differences (maybe most notably video and or larger LCD screens) but the BIG difference is lenses. If I follow your questions, i would save some money in the body and buy a better lens. This is what makes a photograph different. The kit lens (I have it, of course) sucks, when you start seeing the incredible change a good lens makes in photography.

So my piece of advice is, spend your money in a decent body and invest heavily in lenses.

Adios

Agree.

I went with Canon for my first DSLR (and will continue with the next one) because I had several very good lenses that I used with an EOS-3 film camera. For that matter, I still like film for a lot of stuff - the tonal range and some subtle features are better on film than digital - Kodachrome (RIP) was probably one of the finest medium for recording images ever made. These days, the film body is usually loaded with B&W film, and I use the DSLR for most other stuff. For "tourist" stuff, the DSLR is fine.

But I digress: good lenses are far more important than the body, provided you're using a reasonably decent body. On the early Canon DSLRs, the Digital Rebel (300D) used the same image sensor and nearly the same electronics as the 10D - the key difference was that the firmware was "crippled" to eliminate some features from the 300D (well, that and a cheaper body). A couple of enterprising folks found a way to hack the firmware and give the 300D much of the 10D's functionality. The cost difference was huge. I bought the Rebel, used the great lenses I had for the EOS-3, and ended up with a system that takes some great pictures.

I'm looking at the 7D right now as it's time to upgrade.

Here's a different solution. Get a used pro body....about 5 MP from KEH photo, B&H photo, etc. Add a decent zoom telephoto. Maybe an Olympus E-1 (http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=DO029990805630&brandcategoryname=Digital&Mode=searchproducts&item=0&ActivateTOC2=false&ID=&BC=DO&BCC=3&CC=2&CCC=1&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=) + 70-300 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/504906-REG/Olympus_261057_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_Zuiko_ED.html) lens. What do the pros think?

ETA: I enjoy shooting in low light. I've been scoping this 14-54. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590390-REG/Olympus_261060_14_54mm_f_2_8_3_5_II_Zuiko.html) Might be OK for shooting cyclocross.

Have fun!

...
The most important issue with DSLR´s and photography is not the camera, but the lenses. ...

If I follow your questions, i would save some money in the body and buy a better lens. ...

So my piece of advice is, spend your money in a decent body and invest heavily in lenses.

Adios

+1 Glad I read through the posts before responding immediately.

Invest in lenses, not bodies, especially if you are a beginner.

You're up late Fat Man. :)

Thanks for the advice everyone! I ended up pulling the trigger on the Canon T1i (which I hadn't even considered, quite frankly, because I thought it was out of budget). Amazon was running a deal today, so I picked up the body, the 18-55 kit lens, plus the 55-250 IS lens for $800 total, which seemed like a pretty good deal!

Now to buy accessories...bag, UV filter, LCD screen protector - anything else? Any recommendations on any of these would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks for the advice everyone! I ended up pulling the trigger on the Canon T1i (which I hadn't even considered, quite frankly, because I thought it was out of budget). Amazon was running a deal today, so I picked up the body, the 18-55 kit lens, plus the 55-250 IS lens for $800 total, which seemed like a pretty good deal!

Now to buy accessories...bag, UV filter, LCD screen protector - anything else? Any recommendations on any of these would be greatly appreciated!

Glad you got that one! I had actually suggested that back in post #3. I wouldn't go too crazy on accessories right now. Hopefully you already have a decent tripod (if not - get one!). A remote shutter release is great to have. I do a lot of landscapes and that's a must for me. A good circular polarizing filter is handy too for landscapes. I've been through a lot of bags and never seem to be totally happy. Lately I use a cheap messenger bag ($20) with a Tenba photo insert and that's my day bag for walking around town. For carrying everything on flights I use a Tamrac Expedition 6X backpack.

Get a good strap too. The Optech Pro Loop strap is extremely comfortable. If I think of anything else I pass it along.

-Tim

i bought backwards. i wanted a sigma 170-500mm for my wife. the one i got on ebay was much less than any others offered. it ended up brand new, in the box.

then went out and got the best deal for a camera to attach to the back of it.

i then filled in her lens set from craig's list. i was able to try each one before paying for it.

FYI, I own BOTH Nikon and Olympus DSLRs, because they each do certain things uniquely well (although I would admit that Canons are very comparable to Nikons with respect to their strengths.

The reason I own an Olympus E-520 is that it is a superior body for using legacy manual focus lenses from nearly every other system - using inexpensive adapters. It provides in-body image stabilization, as well as metering, with my old Nikon manual focus lenses, something that my Nikon D90 can't do. I even put an aftermarket ground-glass focusing screen into my Olympus E-520 to optimize it for manual focus work.

The 4/3 system is not fundamentally any weaker than the others in practical use, it's just slightly inferior in terms of shooting in very dim lighting, and Olympus' implementation of autofocus is not as good as Nikon or Canon's. But I mainly use my Olympus for wide angle landscapes and shooting with old manual lenses, so this becomse a non-issue. My specific use of the E-520 is quite specialized, but even so, it's a very decent general purpose camera, and a superb value at the prices it's currently available for, with the caveat that it is nowhere near as good as a Nikon D90 or above or a Canon EOS 40D or above, for shooting sports and action and low light work. For anything else, it's entirely competitive, and has great ergonomics and great lenses - especially the wide angles, where Olympus' lenses are superior to Nikon and Canon's offerings, IMHO. Conversely, in the area of fast telephotos for shooting action, and for macro work, Nikon and Canon's lenses are superior.