Comments on Canon 1000D?

[CathJ]

I'm considering upgrading from my point-n-shoot, and I'm thinking of the Canon 1000D. I've read lots of reviews, and I think it's the right camera for me - but I'm always looking for more opinions! I particularly like the Canon because of LiveView, but then I've also read that the pictures can be a bit soft, which might annoy me as my current compact is very sharp. Anyone have one of these and can comment?

I'm also a bit concerned that, coming from a plain old point-n-shoot, this camera might be a bit daunting. But then, that's the point, right? To learn more about, and be able to mess with, manual settings... just a bit scary to spend R5K on something that I don't know if I'll use to it's full potential And the add-ons! There are so many options... but I guess you start with the basics and add on as you need, right? And there seem to be some odd limitations on DSLR's (like the lack of LiveView on most cameras, or needing the IS version of the lens for Canon), so I'm worried there's something else I don't know that will come back to bite me (and cost me more money!)

 

[mercurial]

Do you have a budget for a SLR? I mean, if you had/have a budget, what is it? Just asking in case you might be able to get a better camera for the price.
1000D is a pretty good start to get into SLRs.

 

[Quantum Theory]

If I had to buy entry level right now, it would be the Nikon D3100. No contest... The softness you mention is probably the kit lens. The 1000D should perform nicely, with some quality optics attached.

 

[CathJ]

Do you have a budget for a SLR? I mean, if you had/have a budget, what is it? Just asking in case you might be able to get a better camera for the price.
1000D is a pretty good start to get into SLRs.

As low as possible?

No, I know I'll have to spend money to get a good camera. I'd prefer to stick to around R5000 to R6000, including the absolutely-required extras (things like the IS lens - other extras, like a macro lens, I'll probably get later).

If I had to buy entry level right now, it would be the Nikon D3100. No contest... The softness you mention is probably the kit lens. The 1000D should perform nicely, with some quality optics attached.

Hmm, it does look good - I had looked at the D3000, but it didn't have LiveView - I didn't realise there was a newer version that did. I have a Nikon at the moment, and I've been very happy with it. The features do look more comprehensive than on the 1000D - sacamera has the 1000D with the IS lens for around 5K, and the D3100 with the VR lens for around 6K.

 

[mercurial]

sacamera.co.za has a good deal atm - http://www.sacamera.co.za/product/1016321/Canon_EOS_1000D_Starter_Bundle/

 

[CathJ]

sacamera.co.za has a good deal atm - http://www.sacamera.co.za/product/1016321/Canon_EOS_1000D_Starter_Bundle/

I saw that, but the lens isn't the IS version.

Actually, the more I look at the Nikon D3100 the more I like it...

 

[koffiejunkie]

The reported softness is really from perspective of DSLR users of higher-end cameras and particularly lenses. If you're used to a P&S, you'll still be impressed. But I'll concur with Quantum Theory, the 1000D ships with the old non-IS 18-55mm kit lens - who knows why. The now three-odd-year old "new" one has IS and is significantly sharper. I have spent a good deal of time shooting with a friend's 1000D - there's nothing to fault with its output. The thing that bothered me most was the absence of ISO modes above 1600 and the rather basic AF.

But I'll agree, right now the Nikon D3100 is a much better deal. Be aware of one gotcha with Nikon cameras. Some of Nikon's older lenses require the camera to have a focus motor in for auto focus to work. The entry-level Nikons don't. This becomes relevant when you want to buy something like the cheapy 50mm f/1.8 (a good lens by all accounts) - it doesn't have AF on anything below the D90. You can still use it though, it's just manual focus. The 35mm f/1.8 G AF-S DX is a great alternative, and a nicer focal length (to my taste), and it has AF on the low-end bodies.

 

[bwana]

On the subject of the old canon kit lens, while it may have its flaws (flaring and barrel distortion to name two), sharpness is most definitely not one of them.

As for the 1000D, well let's just say Canon makes plenty of better ones.

 

[CathJ]

So the feeling seems to be towards the D3100 than the 1000D... cool

Then another question (sorry, but I'm totally clueless) - I assume the 18-55mm lens has a decent zoom range? I tend towards the two extremes, macro photography and landscape photography, and while I know I can buy better, specialised lenses for each of those, would the 18-55mm give me at least as good a range as I currently get on my 3.5x optical zoom compact?

 

[Quantum Theory]

The 35mm f/1.8 G AF-S DX is a great alternative, and a nicer focal length (to my taste), and it has AF on the low-end bodies.

Agreed... Last two shots (and some others) on my flickr stream was shot with it. Super sharp and perfect length.

 

[koffiejunkie]

The range will be similar, 18-55 is rougly 3x zoom. It my be that the ranges don't have the same limits in terms of field of view - it depends on how wide your compact starts. If you're willing to spend a little more, the 18-105mm lens is said to be very nice too - that gives you about a 5x zoom range.

Be prepared to be disappointed by the macro abilities of these lenses though. The sensor/lens size ratio on a point&shoot give it hte ability to focus really really closely. On DSLRs, it's a bit different, and many lenses, especially the cheaper ones, cannot focus as close. There are lenses that include moderate macro abilities though. The Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO can focus fairly closely. It's a very affordable lens and not too bad, but nothing to get excited about and it doesn't have VR/IS. Compromises...

 

[Quantum Theory]

So the feeling seems to be towards the D3100 than the 1000D... cool

Then another question (sorry, but I'm totally clueless) - I assume the 18-55mm lens has a decent zoom range? I tend towards the two extremes, macro photography and landscape photography, and while I know I can buy better, specialised lenses for each of those, would the 18-55mm give me at least as good a range as I currently get on my 3.5x optical zoom compact?

It will be quite a bit wider, which is good for those landscapes. Macro will be a problem, until you get a lens for that.

 

[CathJ]

The range will be similar, 18-55 is rougly 3x zoom. It my be that the ranges don't have the same limits in terms of field of view - it depends on how wide your compact starts. If you're willing to spend a little more, the 18-105mm lens is said to be very nice too - that gives you about a 5x zoom range.

Be prepared to be disappointed by the macro abilities of these lenses though. The sensor/lens size ratio on a point&shoot give it hte ability to focus really really closely. On DSLRs, it's a bit different, and many lenses, especially the cheaper ones, cannot focus as close. There are lenses that include moderate macro abilities though. The Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO can focus fairly closely. It's a very affordable lens and not too bad, but nothing to get excited about and it doesn't have VR/IS. Compromises...

Hmm. Lots to think about...

 

[BigAl-sa]

So the feeling seems to be towards the D3100 than the 1000D... cool

Then another question (sorry, but I'm totally clueless) - I assume the 18-55mm lens has a decent zoom range? I tend towards the two extremes, macro photography and landscape photography, and while I know I can buy better, specialised lenses for each of those, would the 18-55mm give me at least as good a range as I currently get on my 3.5x optical zoom compact?

55/18 = 3.05

What you need to do is to look at the film equivalent of your P&S's zoom range. The 18-55 has a film equivalent of 29-88mm. I agree with Bwana about the sharpness of the kit lens being more than adequate - you might be unhappy about the results when trying to use it as a macro lens though.

 

[BigAl-sa]

55/18 = 3.05

What you need to do is to look at the film equivalent of your P&S's zoom range. The 18-55 has a film equivalent of 29-88mm. I agree with Bwana about the sharpness of the kit lens being more than adequate - you might be unhappy about the results when trying to use it as a macro lens though.

The first five pics in this gallery (and this one) were taken with the same model kit lens being sold with the 1000d. This wolf/nursery web spider was also taken with the kit lens.

 

[CathJ]

The first five pics in this gallery (and this one) were taken with the same model kit lens being sold with the 1000d. This wolf/nursery web spider was also taken with the kit lens.

Darn, that site is blocked at work. I'll check it out when I get home, though.

 

[CathJ]

Thinking I might get this... although I was planning to wait until I got my bonus beginning of December! Looks like the bug has bitten...

 

[koffiejunkie]

It will be quite a bit wider

That's not a given. It depends on the lens in the P&S. A lot of point & shoot cameras start at the equivalent of 24mm (Sony Cybershot and Panasonic Lumix in particular), while 18-55mm on a 1.6x crop body is 28.8mm at the wide end.

Thinking I might get this... although I was planning to wait until I got my bonus beginning of December! Looks like the bug has bitten...

There will likely be better deals going then. And the new models might have come down in price a bit too.

 

[bwana]

Thinking I might get this... although I was planning to wait until I got my bonus beginning of December! Looks like the bug has bitten...

Don't worry, there will still be plenty of camera gear you'll want to buy come December.

 

[CathJ]

The first five pics in this gallery (and this one) were taken with the same model kit lens being sold with the 1000d. This wolf/nursery web spider was also taken with the kit lens.

Those are awesome! Better than my p&s, and I love the depth-of-field effect. (Although I could have done with just looking at the flowers, and skipped the spider. Awesome photo, but horrible subject!)