choosing DSLR - Nikon/Canon @ <32K
- Thread starter choudang
- Start date
-
- Tags
- choosing dslr nikon/canon
codename_romeo
Romeo + Lucifer = ME
Yeah Canon 550D or Nikon D3100/5000 are the best you can buy in that range.
Trust me very soon you would be needing a 50-250mm/50-300mm lens as well as a 50mm lens. DSLR photography is a passion....
Trust me very soon you would be needing a 50-250mm/50-300mm lens as well as a 50mm lens. DSLR photography is a passion....
sujoyp
Grand Master
Bro depends on your budget and requirement...
Tamron 70-300 and sigma 70-300 will work and cost around 7-8k but they dont have Vibration Reduction VR
Nikon 55-200 Vr can be bought for 9-10k but then its reach is less...but its good quality
There is also Nikon 55-300 which costs around 18k
and tamron 70-300 with VR I think costs around 21k
And price go on.....
Zangetsu
I am the master of my Fate.
Bro depends on your budget and requirement...
Tamron 70-300 and sigma 70-300 will work and cost around 7-8k but they dont have Vibration Reduction VR
Nikon 55-200 Vr can be bought for 9-10k but then its reach is less...but its good quality
There is also Nikon 55-300 which costs around 18k
and tamron 70-300 with VR I think costs around 21k
And price go on.....
ok...how is much is optical zoom of each of these ?
sujoyp
Grand Master
I dont know perfectly but its like divide the bigger number by smaller one and u will get an estimate ex for 70-300 its 300/70= 4.5x
But remember this focal lenght starts after your 18-55...that means u would start with more then max zoom which u see from 18-55..soo people say get
18-55 and 55-200 soo that u can cover all focal lenght and a zoom of say 10-11x
But remember this focal lenght starts after your 18-55...that means u would start with more then max zoom which u see from 18-55..soo people say get
18-55 and 55-200 soo that u can cover all focal lenght and a zoom of say 10-11x
ajayashish
Living to Succeed
Canon has come out with 1100D... specs looks good as well..
OP
choudang
Padawan
^^ yet to be launched in india
we have picked up nikon D3100 @ 28K with 18-55mm kit along with nikkor 55-200mm and sigma 70-300mm from Chandni Chowk. [we travel freaks having multiple choices....
7.5k/head DSLR ..
55-200mm is mine
as you are having 18-55mm along with the body, just go for sigma 70-300 or nikkor 55-200mm for day to day photography.
55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR will cost you 18k, where Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED VR will cost you 7.6k and sigma 70-300 will cost you 8.7k [both without bill]
we have picked up nikon D3100 @ 28K with 18-55mm kit along with nikkor 55-200mm and sigma 70-300mm from Chandni Chowk. [we travel freaks having multiple choices....
7.5k/head DSLR .. 55-200mm is mine nope, 550D available in delhi @ 34k with 18-55 lens kit.Bro if u havent purchased yet then u should consider canon 550D for 34k...Its awsome pricing...canon decreased the price by 7k
Lucky for u..
as you are having 18-55mm along with the body, just go for sigma 70-300 or nikkor 55-200mm for day to day photography.
55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR will cost you 18k, where Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED VR will cost you 7.6k and sigma 70-300 will cost you 8.7k [both without bill]
jamesbond008
Broken In
That was a little bit overeaching4. dONT EXPECT 26X IN DSLR ....the kit lens 18-55 is like a 3x zoom lens....a 18-105 is like a 7-8x zoom lens...if somehow u ever take a 100-500 lens it would I think reach the zoom of 20x...but will cost a bomb
I hope other knowledgeble will give more info
Zoom = max focal length / min focal length
so in this case it will be 5x
though usually the X factor is not used in case of DSLR
sujoyp
Grand Master
yaah bro u r right in one sense but wrong in other...
Our eye sees at a focal length of nearly 50mm soo a 100 mm is already zoomed by 50mm more.
if u wanna calculate that a 500mm will look to our eyes I would say a thing will look 10 times bigger then what we see originally
hey choudang....congrats..but I didnt understand...y 55-200 and 70-300...most of the focal length would be overlapped
but u got at great price
enjoy
Our eye sees at a focal length of nearly 50mm soo a 100 mm is already zoomed by 50mm more.
if u wanna calculate that a 500mm will look to our eyes I would say a thing will look 10 times bigger then what we see originally
hey choudang....congrats..but I didnt understand...y 55-200 and 70-300...most of the focal length would be overlapped
but u got at great price
enjoy
www.titlus.com
Right off the assembly line
Hi, I would advice the following SLR's based on your budget and requirements:
1. Nikon D3100: Basically a cheap entry level SLR which just about gets the job done. You get sharp pics & 20minute videos with no extra bells and whistles. Note: You can use latest Nikon lenses for getting additional zoom. But for most landscape, wide-angle, portrait, party and close-up shots, the kit lens 18-55mm is more than sufficient and is super-sharp. Price approx Rs. 32K
2. Nikon D5000: An excellent SLR if you cannot afford the fabulous Nikon D90. I use this one. An excellent value for money camera. Price approx Rs. 33K
3. Canon SX30IS: This is NOT an SLR. Well this has the longest zoom in the world. That's just about it. An average camera which you give to a novice to take everyday snaps. Focusing in low light is poor and you need to take 10 shots before you can get one sharp & focused picture. You can always delete the balance out-of focus images. I use it to take pics of my kids. Its always on hand!!
Tip: Always compare apples to apples. SLR's are a different breed when compared to compact super-zooms like the Canon SX30IS.
1. Nikon D3100: Basically a cheap entry level SLR which just about gets the job done. You get sharp pics & 20minute videos with no extra bells and whistles. Note: You can use latest Nikon lenses for getting additional zoom. But for most landscape, wide-angle, portrait, party and close-up shots, the kit lens 18-55mm is more than sufficient and is super-sharp. Price approx Rs. 32K
2. Nikon D5000: An excellent SLR if you cannot afford the fabulous Nikon D90. I use this one. An excellent value for money camera. Price approx Rs. 33K
3. Canon SX30IS: This is NOT an SLR. Well this has the longest zoom in the world. That's just about it. An average camera which you give to a novice to take everyday snaps. Focusing in low light is poor and you need to take 10 shots before you can get one sharp & focused picture. You can always delete the balance out-of focus images. I use it to take pics of my kids. Its always on hand!!
Tip: Always compare apples to apples. SLR's are a different breed when compared to compact super-zooms like the Canon SX30IS.
Last edited by a moderator:
r4gs
In the zone
personally i prefer canon. Mainly because when you buy an slr, as opposed to a point and shoot, you're actually investing in lenses and not the body itself. Dslr bodies become obsolete within a couple of years.
Why i prefer canon is because their ef lenses are compatible with every single camera slr camera made by canon, including film, since the lenses were introduced. Ef-s lenses are for the cheaper dslrs, but the ef lenses are still compatible with them. You just multiply the focal length of an ef lens with 1.6 and you have the equivalent efs focal length. Eg, 200mm ef lens would be a 320mm lens in efs.
For shooting pics of birds, 200mm is nowhere near enough. Something closer to a 400-500mm would be what you'll require. Those lenses are usually extremely expensive.
An 18-55mm lens is 3x zoom, but it is not necessarily a 3x magnification. As mentioned earlier, 50mm to 90mm is usually considered normal for our eyes and are actually called normal lenses.
Superzooms may have ridiculous amounts of zoom, but bear in mind that optical quality will usually suck through most of the zoom range. This, in fact applies to almost all lenses, but is more prominent in superzooms.
Why i prefer canon is because their ef lenses are compatible with every single camera slr camera made by canon, including film, since the lenses were introduced. Ef-s lenses are for the cheaper dslrs, but the ef lenses are still compatible with them. You just multiply the focal length of an ef lens with 1.6 and you have the equivalent efs focal length. Eg, 200mm ef lens would be a 320mm lens in efs.
For shooting pics of birds, 200mm is nowhere near enough. Something closer to a 400-500mm would be what you'll require. Those lenses are usually extremely expensive.
An 18-55mm lens is 3x zoom, but it is not necessarily a 3x magnification. As mentioned earlier, 50mm to 90mm is usually considered normal for our eyes and are actually called normal lenses.
Superzooms may have ridiculous amounts of zoom, but bear in mind that optical quality will usually suck through most of the zoom range. This, in fact applies to almost all lenses, but is more prominent in superzooms.
Sounava
In the zone
Some points to note:
In many previous replies I saw everyone stating that 50mm is the "normal" focal length. While the statement is true, but do remember we use crop sensor DSLRs (ie DX in Nikon terms). So whatever focal length of a lens you are talking about, you will have to multiply with 1.5 in case of Nikon and 1.6 in case of Canon to get the equivalent focal length in terms of FX cameras. 50mm is "normal" in FX or 35mm sensor terms.
So, in DX cameras, a 50mm lens will give field of view of a 75mm lens in Nikon and in Canon it will behave as a 80mm lens.
Equivalent focal length if 35mm = 52mm in Nikon. So 35mm gives "normal" field of view in DX bodies. That is why Nikon has this excellent lens 35mm f/1.8 available ar around 11k.
It is unfortunate that Canon do not have any equivalent counterpart.
About focussing in D3100, D5000 etc: Except the cheap 50mm f/1.8 it is very difficult to come to a situation where you are stuck up because you are not finding a lens which will not AF in the Nikon D3100. Almost all lenses which we normally use now come with focus motors and is of the AF-S type.
Another thing: the 55-300 VR lens is not recommended to buy and is not worth the price. The Nikon 70-300VR @ 24k is a MUCH better buy.
Reasons:
1. Image quality of 55-300 is same as that of 55-200 which is a 10k lens. In that sense the 55-300 is way overpriced. It would have been ideal if it was available @ 14k or 15k for example.
2. The 55-300 is a DX lens. So expect the corners of a picture to have less sharpness than the centre. The 70-300VR is an FX lens. So it will give excellent corner to corner sharpness in DX bodies.
3. The front element of the 55-300 rotates while auto focussing. So using CPL's are a hassle. The 70-300VR has internal focussing. So using CPL's are a charm.
4. The image quality and build quality of the 70-300VR is superb and the lens is excellent VFM.
In many previous replies I saw everyone stating that 50mm is the "normal" focal length. While the statement is true, but do remember we use crop sensor DSLRs (ie DX in Nikon terms). So whatever focal length of a lens you are talking about, you will have to multiply with 1.5 in case of Nikon and 1.6 in case of Canon to get the equivalent focal length in terms of FX cameras. 50mm is "normal" in FX or 35mm sensor terms.
So, in DX cameras, a 50mm lens will give field of view of a 75mm lens in Nikon and in Canon it will behave as a 80mm lens.
Equivalent focal length if 35mm = 52mm in Nikon. So 35mm gives "normal" field of view in DX bodies. That is why Nikon has this excellent lens 35mm f/1.8 available ar around 11k.
It is unfortunate that Canon do not have any equivalent counterpart.
About focussing in D3100, D5000 etc: Except the cheap 50mm f/1.8 it is very difficult to come to a situation where you are stuck up because you are not finding a lens which will not AF in the Nikon D3100. Almost all lenses which we normally use now come with focus motors and is of the AF-S type.
Another thing: the 55-300 VR lens is not recommended to buy and is not worth the price. The Nikon 70-300VR @ 24k is a MUCH better buy.
Reasons:
1. Image quality of 55-300 is same as that of 55-200 which is a 10k lens. In that sense the 55-300 is way overpriced. It would have been ideal if it was available @ 14k or 15k for example.
2. The 55-300 is a DX lens. So expect the corners of a picture to have less sharpness than the centre. The 70-300VR is an FX lens. So it will give excellent corner to corner sharpness in DX bodies.
3. The front element of the 55-300 rotates while auto focussing. So using CPL's are a hassle. The 70-300VR has internal focussing. So using CPL's are a charm.
4. The image quality and build quality of the 70-300VR is superb and the lens is excellent VFM.
Last edited:
ajayashish
Living to Succeed
Canon 1100 Launched already 1st april... Price is same as Nikon 3100
Sounava
In the zone
Yup. But surprsingly, D5000 is now at the same price too! Nikon D5000 Price India: SLR Camera: Flipkart Cameras
So no sense going for 1100D or D3100 now
Plus there is no spot metering in 1100D. Although there are no focus motors in these Nikon bodies, but I guess that won't cause that much of a problem.
Yup this one. They say it is a "little" less sharp @ 300mm, but that too is much sharper than the 55-300. Plus no chromatic aberration amazing contrasts.