DSLR Choice

[C1911]

Greeting Ladies & Gents,

Would appreciate your opinions on selecting an entry level DSLR camera. Specifically, which of the 2 would you select if you were (or thought you were) ready to make the transition from compact point-and-shoot:

1) Canon Rebel T3 with 18-55 & 55-250 lenses.
2) Nikon D5100 with 18-55 VR lens.

I know there are a myriad of variables to consider, but basing your decision on what you know now about photography, would either of these be one of your entry level DSLR choices? Thanks Team M1911.

[Hawkmoon]

Of those two, I would choose the Canon.

Personally, for an entry DSLR I'd choose the EOS Rebel XS. It's only $50 less, and it's 10 megapixels rather than 12, but it gives you one more available resolution choice for shooting. And in reality, unless you plan to make mural-size enlargements, you can't see the difference between 10 megapixels and 12 megapixels anyway.

[C1911]

Thanks Hawkmoon. I didn't include the Rebel XS because of my 2 choices both are similarly priced, but option 1 has 2 lenses and the Nikon has 1. Guess I'm really wondering if the quality, features and the performance of the Nikon D5100 overshadows the Canon Rebel T3 with 2 separate lenses? But now that you mention it, the Rebel XS may indeed be the better alternative if the additional lens that the T3 kit comes with wouldn't be an accessory that I may not have an immediate use for.

[wjkuleck]

Two data points.

1. All the pictures you see me post (well, those taken in the last 18 months or so!) were taken with a Rebel Ti1. I use the included 18-55 zoom, but also an EF-S 60mm Macro/Portrait lens I purchased separately. I've also illustrated two books with that camera; the feedback on the published photography has been very positive.

2. Not too long before I acquired the Canon, my publisher bought a Nikon (model unknown). He has yet to use it after initial trials. He is very disgusted with it, so disgusted that he refuses to talk to me about it.

So, there you go. The only regret I have is that time marches on, and a T3i would be nice...

Regards,

Walt

[Hawkmoon]

I didn't include the Rebel XS because of my 2 choices both are similarly priced, but option 1 has 2 lenses and the Nikon has 1.
There's no question that the extra lens adds to the package. The question is whether or not you have a need for it. Your original post stipulated "entry level." I'm old enough that an entry-level SLR (film variety) meant one, fixed focal length lens -- typically 50 or 55 mm. Just a zoom lens of any description was getting beyond "entry level" into serious amateur territory.

The problem we all face is that technology is advancing too fast, and the manufacturers have to justify the advances with sales. So their task is to convince us that we need the latest and greatest gizmo they've just released. And the fact is, for most people and especially for amateurs, we DON'T need anything like that.

To better advise you, it would help if you could identify what kind of photography you plan to use this new camera for. That will provide a more solid foundation for making the choice.

Let me give you some examples, if I may. First up: myself. I'm now a senior citizen. When I was in high school, I was fortunate enough to be included in a summer tour to Europe to study the Protestant Reformation -- in the places where it happened. My family didn't have a lot of money, so a new camera was out of the question. My grandfather gave me his old rangefinder 35mm camera, a little-known semi-clone of the German Leica. It had only one lens, and that was built in. The focal length was 50mm -- "normal" perspective for a 35mm camera. Over the course of a six or seven week trip I took fourteen or fifteen 36-exposure rolls of photos.

Since then, I have owned and used at least five top brand SLR film cameras, two of which were top-of-the-line professional models when I bought them. I had 9and still have) standard lenses, wide angle lenses, telephoto lenses, zoom lenses, telecouplers (doublers), skylight filters, polarizing filters, neutral density filters ... you name it, I've probably used it. And out off all that, I have always felt that -- as a total package -- the absolute best GROUP of photos I've ever taken were the ones I took using my grandfather's old, no-name, obsolete rangefinder camera.

Now let's move forward in time to the digital age. Have you spent any time reading the gun reviews in our e-zine? If not ... do so. In particular, read a couple of the most recent reviews by Hunter, and by Rio Vista Slim. Compare their photos ... not for photographic skills, but just for the quality of the images. It might interest you to learn that they both use Canon cameras. But ... Hunter uses Canon's newest, top-of-the line professional DSLR with a lens that, by itself, cost more than any of the complete kits you are considering buying. And Rio Vista Slim uses a Canon point-n-shoot -- IIRC a Power-Shot A420. It offers an awe-inspiring 4.0 megapixels, and a 3.2x optical zoom ratio. New, when it was a current model, it probably sold for around $175 to $200. Hunter's camera and lens probably cost him around $5,000 (or more).

Are Hunter's review photos enough better than Rio Vista Slim's to spend an extra $4,800 on the camera?

Are Rio Vista Slim's photos in any way UNclear enough to suggest that a meager 4.0 megapixel resolution isn't enough?

You must consider the end use, and not get suckered into the photo version of the old automotive horsepower wars. When digital SLRs first came out (and it wasn't that long ago), 6 megapixels was considered incredible, and cameras that delivered such unheard of resolution cost thousands of dollars. Today, almost any pocket digital camera costing more than $75 at Wal-Mart beats 6 megapixels. But if you won't be doing huge enlargements, you don't NEED more than 6 (or 10) megapixels. If your camera offers that resolution and you use it because it's there, rather than one of the lower resolutions, all you're doing is making files that take up a lot more space on your memory card.

The photos here on this forum are limited to 800x600 pixels. That's half a megapixel (0.48, to be exact). If you have a conventional aspect ratio monitor set for 1280 x 1024, a full-screen image is 1.3 megapixels.

That's why I said in my original response that of the two choices you listed I would take the Canon kit. I would take it because the extra lens will be useful some day, some how. But don't be fooled into thinking you NEED all the horsepower of either of those cameras to take family snapshots. Both of those cameras far exceed what the professionals were using just a very few years ago.

[wjkuleck]

Hawkmoon, my needs are a little bit different. I need to create 300 dpi TIFFs for print publication. However, you are absolutely correct that the 72-96 dpi required for computer monitors is adequately provided for by five-megapixel cameras.

For resolution and post-processing reasons I shoot max-res RAW. This gives me 18-22 MB files :). But, as I stated, my mileage varies.

Best regards,

Walt

[Hawkmoon]

Hawkmoon, my needs are a little bit different. I need to create 300 dpi TIFFs for print publication. However, you are absolutely correct that the 72-96 dpi required for computer monitors is adequately provided for by five-megapixel cameras.

For resolution and post-processing reasons I shoot max-res RAW. This gives me 18-22 MB files :). But, as I stated, my mileage varies.

Best regards,

Walt
Yepp. For publication, the publishers want RAW format (which creates HUGE files) in order to have maximum flexibility in processing the images for publication.

This is why it's necessary to know what the end use will be. Shooting for publication isn't (IMHO) "entry level" photography.

[C1911]

Two data points.The only regret I have is that time marches on, and a T3i would be nice...
Thanks Walt. From your perspective, what would be the main advantage for a novice with a T3i vs. an older T3?

[C1911]

To better advise you, it would help if you could identify what kind of photography you plan to use this new camera for. Have you spent any time reading the gun reviews in our e-zine? When digital SLRs first came out (and it wasn't that long ago), 6 megapixels was considered incredible, and cameras that delivered such unheard of resolution cost thousands of dollars.
Hawkmoon, Thank You. Primary uses (don't laugh) are model cars (die cast), firearms, flowers and family photos, with an occasional gun shoot and sporting events. I have a Pentax Optio 550 that has served me well for years. 5mp, 5x optical point-n-shoot, which really does take pretty good pictues and has taught me that 5mp is plenty. However, it's time to move forward; I'm older now and I'd like to spend some time learning some of the finer points of photography, albiet still on a very amateur level.

Master plan is to replace my Pentax with an upgraded point-n-shoot. This will be my primary camera for car shows, every day type photos and times/places that don't warrant breaking out the DSLR. I have probably reviewed nearly all the photo threads here and EZ-Line articles and while I certainly concur that the difference between most point-n-shoots and entry level DLSR's aren't enough in my mind to justify thousands of dollars; I do believe there's a noticeable gap between what I've seen between a $200 point-n-shoot and an $800 DSLR. Of course, I suspect much of that difference can be attributed to photo processing applications too.

Obviously I'm not at a stage to begin processing RAW photos, or using the many features offered by a DLSR's; I would eventually like to progress towards that end. I don't have expectations that a DLSR'S is going to significantly improve my captured images or make me a better photographer, but I do think it will give me some manual control and another hobby I can grow into. Your thoughts? Thanks.

[wjkuleck]

Thanks Walt. From your perspective, what would be the main advantage for a novice with a T3i vs. an older T3?
Probably nothing; I just like my T1i; the T3i is just the latest iterations.

For objective assessments of digital cameras, go to http://www.dpreview.com. You'll find information you didn't realize you needed to know :)!

For the Canons, this review has a really good overview that positions all the various related "T" models: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos600d/

Best regards,

Walt

[patriotic]

One advantage that has not been mentioned here for the Nikon package is the VR (Vibration Reduction) feature. Especially if you are a novice photographer and are not adept to holding a camera steady this feature could be invaluable. Canon also offers lenses like this but not in this package. The IS or Image Stabilization lenses are equivalent to the Nikon VR lenses.

I am a 100% Canon fan but in my work I am provided with Nikon equipment. Both are excellent companies but there are differences in their cameras.

[Hunter]

My first question is do you need video? DSLRs do a great job with video but for video there are better options. If you do not need video in your DSLR there are cheaper options.. My girlfriend shoots with a Canon XS with the EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS and it does an excellent job. She picked it up gently used for about $400 with a 4gig SC card.
Now back to your question, both cameras are great options and either one would do you proud.
Here is a link of a side by side comparison. http://www.digitalphotographywriter.com/2011/04/nikon-d5100-vs-canon-rebel-t3i-600d.html
As Hawkmoon pointed out it does not take an expensive camera to take excellent images. Really where cameras and lenses get expensive is when you want to take quality images in less than ideal conditions (such as low light or fast subjects).
Image Stabilization is useful when you are trying to take an image of a still subject and you are handholding during a long exposure. Long exposure being a relative term. Shake becomes apparent in a camera lens same as a rifle scope, the more magnification the better chance you can observe shake. For camera a good rule of thumb is shutter speed should be around the same as focal length. For example at 55mm 50th of a second or at 200mm a 200th of a second.
Technique is more important than equipment. Then comes image editing, shoot RAW and edit in a quality program such as Lightroom.
I am getting off subject.
Between the 2 options I would choose the Canon, The 18-55 and 55-250 are a good pair of lenses that will cover most of what you need to shoot. Add a 50mm f/1.8 for an inexpensive low light prime and you will have a nice kit.
Sorry, I did not mean to go on but along with 1911s, photography is a great passion in my life (as well as a large part of my income)

[C1911]

One advantage that has not been mentioned here for the Nikon package is the VR (Vibration Reduction) feature. Especially if you are a novice photographer and are not adept to holding a camera steady this feature could be invaluable. Canon also offers lenses like this but not in this package. The IS or Image Stabilization lenses are equivalent to the Nikon VR lenses.
I am a 100% Canon fan but in my work I am provided with Nikon equipment. Both are excellent companies but there are differences in their cameras.
Thanks Patriotic, I actually assumed that since most decent point-n-shoots have a shake reduction feature, that all DLSR's would too. I also didn't know this was a feature of the lens, vice the body. This is an important consideration, because if you've ever seen one of my range targets, you'd agree that this would also be a beneficial feature in my 1911's. :). Wow, this could be a brilliant 1911 design enhancement; Niemi24s, where are you? ;)

[C1911]

My first question is do you need video? DSLRs do a great job with video but for video there are better options. Really where cameras and lenses get expensive is when you want to take quality images in less than ideal conditions (such as low light or fast subjects).
Image Stabilization is useful when you are trying to take an image of a still subject and you are handholding during a long exposure. Technique is more important than equipment. Then comes image editing, shoot RAW and edit in a quality program such as Lightroom.
Between the 2 options I would choose the Canon, The 18-55 and 55-250 are a good pair of lenses that will cover most of what you need to shoot. Add a 50mm f/1.8 for an inexpensive low light prime and you will have a nice kit.
Thanks Hunter, read you 5x5. :) While I believe ultimate performance (i.e. high end audio, video/sound reproduction, etc...) is always best achieved with separate/dedicated components, it always boils down to a cost/benefit analysis. That said, yes, I do want video capability, but certainly don't expect the same results from a DLSR vs. a dedicated high quality HD Recorder. So, I could probably get by with 720p (since that's my TV's limit), but could be pursuaded to jump up to 1080p if it were just a nominal price increase. If it's a cost of $500 vs. $900, I'd rather spend $900 for more "useable" features and future expansion, but not at a cost of compromising the camera's most essential attributes. Another words, if the $650 camera can serve my primary needs without degrading critical capabilities, then I would rather have that camera. As opposed to buying the $900 camera that produces better video at the cost of low light and close up macro capabilities. However, I'd gladly spend the additional dollars for the $900 camera; providing it performed equally as well or better in the primary areas and had the bonus of additional features.

My current point-n-shoot doesn't have image stabilization and that's very apparent with the excessively high number of ruined photo's that result. I think I would greatly benefit from a shake reduction feature. Also, do these cameras both have a good macro mode? Model car engine compartment detail is challenging for me to sharply capture. If the lenses that come with these cameras can capture very nice (not photo publishing nice) details like scale model trains, 1:18th scale model interiors and engine compartments, that would certainly be a plus. I would assume that if I ever wanted to take that type of detail to another level then, I could always purchase a macro specific lens. Is the lens you mentioned (50mm f/1.8) decent for this purpose? Thanks.

[Hunter]

Make no mistake DSLR do an excellent job with video (1080P at 24 or 30 fps ). This movie I have helped with was shot on a 7D and 5d MKII but everything is manual focus and after 12 minutes of video the camera will stop but can be restarted that instant.
http://www.remnants-movie.com/
When shooting video it helps to use a tripod or some sort of shoulder mount.
It is convenient as having your camera out and see an opportunity to catch some video and do not have to go to another camera. The on board mic is not great but there are great options for shotgun mics that will plug directly into the camera.
Macro mode is a bit of a mislabel. You can zoom in close with a telephoto to a small subject and still get good detail. As Walt pointed out a macro lens will blow your mind with what you can do (and they make great portrait lenses as well). Adding quality video to a DSLR by no means degrades the photo ability. Point and shoots will have some sort of IS because they are more limited to how high you can go with ISO.
IS is a good options on some lenses but if you are photographing model cars (I think that is pretty cool) you will want to do this with a tripod and remote or tripod, focus on the subject, and use the 2 second timer. Pressing the shutter button can shake the camera a bit. I would also consider looking into some small studio lighting or some of those work lights with halogen bulbs and some velum to diffuse the light to get the light where you want. Be sure to shoot RAW ad you can correct white balance in post.
For your set up I bet the 55-250 would do great on model cars with a tripod. I do believe the 55-250 has IS as do most of the 18-55s so look at the kit.
Check this site for some help.
http://www.learnmyshot.com/

[C1911]

Make no mistake DSLR do an excellent job with video (1080P at 24 or 30 fps ). When shooting video it helps to use a tripod or some sort of shoulder mount. IS is a good options on some lenses but if you are photographing model cars (I think that is pretty cool) you will want to do this with a tripod and remote or tripod, focus on the subject, and use the 2 second time. I would also consider looking into some small studio lighting or some of those work lights with halogen bulbs and some velum to diffuse the light to get the light where you want.For your set up I bet the 55-250 would do great on model cars with a tripod.
Great tips, Thanks Hunter. I could certainly fill a million pages with more photo procedural and photo processing questions. But, I don't want to get too far ahead of myself, as I'm sure that once I start getting some DSLR trigger time, coupled with some additional study, I'll be in a much better position to isolate and seek solutions for additional areas for improvement.

I'm feeling good about making some progress on equipment selection. Since video is a factor, I think that eliminates the EOS Rebel XS. Plus, since I can always add a zoom lens later, I think the T3i that Walt mentioned has to be seriously considered; especially considering that (unlike the zoom lens) you can't retrofit a 720p T3 to a 1080p like the T3i. The cost of the T3i isn't much more than the T3 2 lens package kit and is more in line with the Nikon D5100 I was considering, which seems very comparable in both price and features. So, I think the T3i is my top contender, unless anyone feels that I'm overlooking anything important from another product, that is both conducive to my intended use and otherwise unavailable on the T3i? Thanks Gents.

[Hunter]

I have worked with another professional photographer that shoot stills/video with a T2i and that is a fine camera, the T3i is supposed to be even better.
I think you are on the right track. There are a lot of good photographers o m1911.org so if you have any questions this would be a great resource.

[hercster]

I'm not in the same league as several of these posters but I will try to add what little I can. The SLR format will work better for you if you shoot close to your subject as I suspect you would with those small car models. The advantage is that what you see is what you get as compared to the image you probably see on a small inexpensive camera. With an SLR you are looking through the same lens that the camera is so your framing will be more accurate.

I have high-end Nikon equipment as it always felt better in my hand than the Canon; I just like the ergonomics of the Nikons better. Do be aware that once you buy into one of the makes, there is some motivation to keep buying that make as you may want to take advantage of lenses you already own. For me to switch at this point would cost me a fortune because of what I have invested in Nikon and compatible lenses. I have two Nikons at different levels so I can switch lenses from one camera to the other at will. So my 70-200 zoom bought for the D-700 fits on my D-90 just as well and gives me the impression of greater "reach" on the latter.

For the guns, models and people you might think of something in the 85mm range with macro capability. This would be helpful with small items that you want close ups of without getting too close particularly with flash. Macro capability lets you get very close for outstanding detail. I have shot pictures of stamps and coins with my macro to catch the fine detail in that kind of item. The macro will give you great close ups of flowers which are one of my favourite targets. You can catch insects deep in the bowls of a flower as they collect nectar or pollen.

I would save part of your budget for a decent flash unit which will give you much better results than the one built into the camera. My preference is for a flash that both tilts and swivels. You will get better results with a lot of different subjects if you 'bounce" the flash rather than hit the subject head on which you must do with the built in flash on the camera.

Those are just some general thoughts that come to mind.

[C1911]

There are a lot of good photographers o m1911.org so if you have any questions this would be a great resource
Thanks Hunter. I have indeed noticed the exceptional photography here at the M1911.org forum. From the EZ Line, member's posts, Mod reviews, John's posts to various photo threads exclusive to the ORG forum, it's a great place to learn much more than 1911's. In fact, this is the only forum in which I've posted this thread, because I know we're going to quickly cut through the chase and get directly to SOLVED. I think a total of 4 different folks posted responses so far and every single one of those responses has contributed to my final decision; Thanks everyone.

In conclusion, although I know the T3i is more camera than I'll ever need, I feel confident that it's the right camera for me; you never regret buying quality. Thanks again Team.

[C1911]

I'm not in the same league as several of these posters but I will try to add what little I can. The SLR format will work better for you if you shoot close to your subject as I suspect you would with those small car models. The advantage is that what you see is what you get as compared to the image you probably see on a small inexpensive camera. For the guns, models and people you might think of something in the 85mm range with macro capability. The macro will give you great close ups of flowers which are one of my favourite targets. You can catch insects deep in the bowls of a flower as they collect nectar or pollen. You will get better results with a lot of different subjects if you 'bounce" the flash rather than hit the subject head on which you must do with the built in flash on the camera.

Thanks Hercster, great information. Although as you state, you may not see yourself in the same league as several of the other posters, I can assure you that I have certainly taken note of your photos and they do enrich the photo quality and versatility here at the ORG.

[garrettwc]

I am one of the original Nikon fanboys. I think the F2A was, and still is, the greatest film SLR ever made. And I agree with all Hercster said about Nikons. So my recommendation would be:


Canon!


As great as Nikon's film cameras were, they are simply behind the curve on the DSLR market. All those great things referenced above, including the erognomics and available accessories, don't start appearing in the Nikon line until you get to the D90. The D-?000 entry level cameras just feel small(and cheap) in my hands. And reviews of Nikon's software/firmware are consistently average or below.

Canon's entry level (both point-n-shoot and dSLR) cameras are much more complete, feel better in the hand, and exhibit a better build quality. The EOS Rebel feels as good, and has consistent controls all the way up the line to the EOS-1. The Nikon, IMO not so much.

As other's have mentioned, I would rather have a cheaper body (T2 vs T3) and good glass than the other way around. It's the thing(lens) attached to the front that makes the difference, not the gadgets on the body. Just my .02

[hercster]

Garret it's interesting that you say some cameras feel small to you. I HATE small cameras with those puny on board flashes 3/4 inch from the lens. My D-90 feels small as I'm used to the D-700 which has a vertical grip semi permanently installed with an extra battery. People will flinch at the weight but in a pinch I can shoot with just one hand and the vertical grip does so much for the balance of the rig. Of course I have a gazillion menus but in actually use just about anything I need to do can be controlled by my thumb and trigger finger.

Cameras are very personal tools and there is some psychology involved too. I can frame a shot with the display but almost never do. I don't feel part of the picture unless the camera is at my eye with my elbows anchored. I think you know what I mean. I'm not good by any means but following a bird in flight with a long lens that weighs three/four pounds feels as natural as a shot gunner on a pheasant.

I started shooting video with a VHS on my shoulder. Later I got a fantastic super eight Canon that I used with a shoulder brace to bring it up to full size and for stability before IS or VR or those aids. I just bought a tiny video camera mostly for my wife. It must weigh six ounces and it feels totally weird to me. The controls are in the wrong places and I just feel totally clumsy trying to shoot with it.

But those small camera obviously sell and indeed they use small size and weight to promote them. I really don't need two cameras and the D-700 is way over my skill level. Every once in a while I think about selling it because pricing for good used Nikon gear are so good now because of Japan's problems. Then I pick up the D-700 with one of my great lenses and maybe the big Nikon flash with the off camera flash Strobo Frame and I choke.

I think you know what I mean :)

[garrettwc]

Hercster, I know exactly what you are talking about. The D90 is the low end of the scale in terms of size and hand fit for me. The D5100 the OP mentioned is about 75% of the size of a D90.

When I had film cameras they all ran a motor drive of some sort underneath.
That's another interesting side point. There are factory battery/vertical grips for the Canons. Not so for the Nikons (below the D90 anyway).

[C1911]

Gents, as you know from my initial post, I'm novice when it comes to cameras. However, I do have a good feel for ergonomics and tactical gear. So, if I may, I'd like to address a couple of your issues.

People will flinch at the weight but in a pinch I can shoot with just one hand and the vertical grip does so much for the balance of the rig. Later I got a fantastic super eight Canon that I used with a shoulder brace to bring it up to full size and for stability before IS or VR or those aids.


While not fully developed, you may find this pistol grip very comfortable. The canon is being used as the protype, but the finished product will indeed have a universal fit. :D
http://i1232.photobucket.com/albums/ff366/C1911/7c974499.jpg

There are factory battery/vertical grips for the Canons. Not so for the Nikons (below the D90 anyway).
http://i1232.photobucket.com/albums/ff366/C1911/2e248e90.jpg

[patriotic]

Back in the early 70’s I had a pistol grip that attached to the tripod thread. It was semi-hard rubber and had a cable release that attached to the camera shutter button at one end and was a trigger at the other end. Trouble with today’s DSLRs they no longer have a shutter button that will accept a cable release. I have even seen rigs where a camera would mount on a rifle stock and have a trigger shutter release.

[Hunter]

Trouble with today’s DSLRs they no longer have a shutter button that will accept a cable release.
There are remotes available for most all DSLR, wired or wireless.

[C1911]

Back in the early 70’s I had a pistol grip that attached to the tripod thread. I have even seen rigs where a camera would mount on a rifle stock and have a trigger shutter release.
So much for my idea of a hogue over-molded shotgun style fore-grip. :)

[hercster]

20/25 years ago I had a polymer rig that hooked over my shoulder and stabilized with a brace against my chest and a sling. I would set up my Canon Super 8 Video camera and be able to shoot all day without fatigue and rock steady. It held the camera just at the right distance once adjusted which was easy with large knobs meant to be used by even gloved hands. I could mount an SLR too. I have no idea what I did with that thing but would love to have it now.

[hercster]

There are remotes available for most all DSLR, wired or wireless.

Yep. I have one for the Nikons. It works very well. I set the camera up at the range during IPSC sessions with a 70-200 f2.8 zoom and fire away from behind the line. I've gotten some great action shots with that set up. I get even better shots with an f1.4 normal lens for wider angles.

These are also good for candid and natural shots of kids where the photog can be a distraction.

[John]

I am one of the original Nikon fanboys. I think the F2A was, and still is, the greatest film SLR ever made.

You mean one like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/Cameras/DSC_3083.jpg

The D-?000 entry level cameras just feel small(and cheap) in my hands.

I fully agree!

Garret it's interesting that you say some cameras feel small to you. I HATE small cameras with those puny on board flashes 3/4 inch from the lens. My D-90 feels small as I'm used to the D-700 which has a vertical grip semi permanently installed with an extra battery. People will flinch at the weight but in a pinch I can shoot with just one hand and the vertical grip does so much for the balance of the rig. Of course I have a gazillion menus but in actually use just about anything I need to do can be controlled by my thumb and trigger finger.

Me too, I hate small cameras, D40s, D90s are not for me. Give me a full-size body with a motor (or battery grip) on it, and I am a happy camper.

Now, I know the above do not help the OP much, but I had to jump in this discussion. And I hope no one expects to hear me saying "Canon" too, right?? I am a known Nikon man. Just do not ask me to justify my standing right now.

[garrettwc]

You mean one like this:
That would be the one. ;) I was wondering when you were going to jump in.

[hercster]

You mean one like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/Cameras/DSC_3083.jpg



I fully agree!



Me too, I hate small cameras, D40s, D90s are not for me. Give me a full-size body with a motor (or battery grip) on it, and I am a happy camper.

Now, I know the above do not help the OP much, but I had to jump in this discussion. And I hope no one expects to hear me saying "Canon" too, right?? I am a known Nikon man. Just do not ask me to justify my standing right now.


Yah John!!

A man's camera. You just know that the Nikon guy has hair on his chest and smells just a touch like a bear. :lm:

When you saw a man with that on his straps, you knew you were dealing with the cognoscenti. Love that BIG glass!

Gord

[C1911]

And I hope no one expects to hear me saying "Canon" too, right?? I am a known Nikon man. Just do not ask me to justify my standing right now.
:) That's funny. Brand loyalty, you gotta love it. Actually, I don't think anyone could go wrong with their first DSLR from either Nikon or Canon, but that's just from a pure novice’s point of view; certainly those with experience beyond their first DLSR can be much more discriminating and can quickly identify product weaknesses and the features that can't be compromised.

I was already leaning toward Canon just because of their seemingly consistent reputation, but initiated my post with an open mind. If any of the folks would have identified any "red flags" with Canon, that surely would have given me pause and reason to further consider Nikon. Either way, no matter the product, you can rarely go wrong selecting from the industry leaders.

I'm somewhat surprised that there are no Pentax fans. Of course I don't know anything about their DSLR's, although the old Optio 550 point-n-shoot that I've had for years takes some of the best pics I've ever seen from a camera of its class; but perhaps not by today's point-n-shoot standards. I'm also looking to replace my Optio and plan to look towards Pentax to fill that need once again, but won't rule out other brands.

[KimberCowboy1911]

OK, I'm late to the party here, but I own the Rebel XSi and the two lenses you are considering.

When I was originally looking, the comparable Nikon's body was too small for my hands and I personally didn't like the button layout. These are all personal preferences. Did the the Nikon take bad pictures? Oh heavens no. I just liked the feel of the camera and layout better.

As far as the lenses are concerned, Nikon does have anti-vibration on their cameras. The canon does as well, and I believe both of your lens choices have image stabilization, which works quite well actually. The 18-55/IS is a great value. The 55-250/IS is an inexpensive telephoto lens, but gets the job done. It's great for learning how to use telephoto without killing your bank account. I have a few threads I've started here that contain many pictures off that camera with both lenses. Off the top of my head, I know the Rodeo, Vintage Midgets, and Airshow pictures were shot with the 250, everything else was on the 18-55. Those are all unaltered images outside of some cropping where necessary, just so you have some real world comparisons. I've wanted to move up in the camera world, but my budget won't allow it at the moment, so the XSi serves my needs perfectly.

I don't know a whole lot about the Nikons other than an equal amount of people swear by them and their quality. Pentax also makes a wonderful camera, but when you are starting out, I'd recommend you stick with the two major brands for compatibility purposes. You just have a whole lot more options with Nikon and Canon.