First DSLR, Rebel XSI or D60?

[Katier]

I disagree with the Pentax statement. Matter of fact the Pentax will mount after market lenses. Including Sigma and Tamron lenses! So there are lots of after market lenses available for the Pentax system! And as for used lenses, unlike Canon. Pentax is like Nikon and can use their older lenses. Heck you can even mount their MF lenses on the darn thing. Since you can use screw mounts you can now add Zeiss to the list of lenses you can use on it as well.

Well said. I've just got myself a second had 28mm lens for my Pentax DSLR.. and it is a 30 yr old M42 mount lens. Lovely lens and very cheap.

Fact it's manual focus isn't a big problem and if someone is using a lot of MF lenses on a Pentax then you can quickly, easilly, and fairly cheaply swap out the matte screen for one with a split centre to aid with manual focusing.


Regarding the K20D.. it is THE BEST sub professional DSLR on the market at the moment. There are some with better features such as faster 'motor drive' (only really a POSSIBLE issue for motorsports work) and better Live View ( very few people use that) but pound for pound the K20D is unbeatable. Well built, very very keenly priced, superb range of lenses. It is also good enough for Professional quality work especially when paired with some of the awsome, low priced, glass that is available. (that isn't to say proffessional, especially full frame, Nikons and Canon's aren't better. They are.. but they cost 10-20 times as much cash.. just for the body)

 

[Dao]

Personally, I usually go with the main stream. I believe it is market driven. If I only want to buy a DSLR and couple lens and be done with it. Yes, the Pentax is very attractive. As well as Sony and Olympus or even the micro four third from Panasonic. That is for someone that only want to get a better camera than a regular point and shoot.

However, if someone want to grow with the system, currently Nikon and Canon system do have their advantage over other brands. Let's not talks about the old lenses (for manually focus old lenses, Nikon and Canon [may need mounting adapter] do have a lot of them out there). After I start learning about photography and got my first Canon DSLR, I noticed beside the OEM stuff, third party companies always have products for Canon and Nikon cameras. Or at least release the products that work in Canon and Nikon system first.

And I find more decently new Canon and Nikon used photo gears as well. (my observation in the local craigslist).

Don't get me wrong, for the low end camera system, Nikon and Canon may not be the best. But I think it is a very good system to grow with.


As for the OP, if you want me to choose between D60 and XSi, I will choose XSi. Not because I am currently using Canon. It is because XSi is just better than D60 in few ways that I think are important to me such as ..


CMOS vs CCD sensor.
Can autofocus the lens that I want to use without spending too much (i.e. 50mm f/1.8).
More focus points.

 

[beansprouts3]

I prefer canon, if you go nikon, dont go below D80, auto focus is a must IMO

I was going to say that. A good friend of mine bought a lens for her D 60 and discovered she couldn't autofocus with it, so she had to upgrade to D 80. She loves it. I am a Canon girl and I'm very happy with mine.

 

[Katier]

However, if someone want to grow with the system, currently Nikon and Canon system do have their advantage over other brands. Let's not talks about the old lenses (for manually focus old lenses, Nikon and Canon [may need mounting adapter] do have a lot of them out there). After I start learning about photography and got my first Canon DSLR, I noticed beside the OEM stuff, third party companies always have products for Canon and Nikon cameras. Or at least release the products that work in Canon and Nikon system first.

Pentax have as good a range of lenses, better in some aspects, than Nikon and Canon. They have the best prime range of any of the manufacturers ( that is manufacturer produced, sub $1000, lenses) with several sub f2.0 primes varying in focal length from 31 to 77mm

Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Lens
Pentax smc FA 43 mm f1.9 Limited Lens
Pentax smc FA 50mm f1.4 Lens
Pentax smc FA 77 mm f1.8 Limited Lens
Pentax smc DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM Lens

and that's JUST the primes that are sub f2.0, there are a rake of other primes and macros all made by Pentax and all excellent quality and cheap. The 77mm is one of the best portrait lenses available, the 31mm an excellent walkabout lens. The 55mm an excellent general purpose all weather lens ( it's weathersealed). ALL sub $1000.

Sigma and Tamron also produce most, if not all, their lenses in PK fit. They know that they need to because PK is the most common mount. It's not JUST used by Pentax but several other companies have used the same mount over the years.

In short Pentax IS mainstream. It just isn't as popular as canon or nikon. The ONLY reason really to go for Nikon or Canon is if you are DEFINATLY going full frame at some point in the future. Personally if I wanted to get better IQ then I'd go for a 645, 66 or even 5x4 system because they all have FF "35mm" digital beat by a country mile.

 

[captainkimo]

The best camera between the two options you mentioned is the one that you would love to hold.So I suggest, go to the nearest camera shop near your place and compare the cameras side by side and test how would they feel in your hands. Both have their pros and cons and you would never go wrong with anything of the two. Good luck on your purchase!

 

[Dao]

Pentax have as good a range of lenses, better in some aspects, than Nikon and Canon. They have the best prime range of any of the manufacturers ( that is manufacturer produced, sub $1000, lenses) with several sub f2.0 primes varying in focal length from 31 to 77mm

Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Lens
Pentax smc FA 43 mm f1.9 Limited Lens
Pentax smc FA 50mm f1.4 Lens
Pentax smc FA 77 mm f1.8 Limited Lens
Pentax smc DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM Lens

and that's JUST the primes that are sub f2.0, there are a rake of other primes and macros all made by Pentax and all excellent quality and cheap. The 77mm is one of the best portrait lenses available, the 31mm an excellent walkabout lens. The 55mm an excellent general purpose all weather lens ( it's weathersealed). ALL sub $1000.

Sigma and Tamron also produce most, if not all, their lenses in PK fit. They know that they need to because PK is the most common mount. It's not JUST used by Pentax but several other companies have used the same mount over the years.

In short Pentax IS mainstream. It just isn't as popular as canon or nikon. The ONLY reason really to go for Nikon or Canon is if you are DEFINATLY going full frame at some point in the future. Personally if I wanted to get better IQ then I'd go for a 645, 66 or even 5x4 system because they all have FF "35mm" digital beat by a country mile.

Sorry about that, mainstream .. I mean the DSLR market share .. like this one.

 

[Katier]

Whilst we all know who has the market share.. that's largely irrelavent because The argument is that going Pentax = crap/small range of lenses. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Dao]

Whilst we all know who has the market share.. that's largely irrelavent because The argument is that going Pentax = crap/small range of lenses. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Would you mind point out when I said "Pentax = crap/small range of lenses" from the entire photo forum? hum ... maybe someone else said that ....

 

[Katier]

Would you mind point out when I said "Pentax = crap/small range of lenses" from the entire photo forum? hum ... maybe someone else said that ....

Oh not saying 'you' said it or those were the exact words. But the implication was that because Pentax isn't one of the big two it's product range must be worse. While it's true they have a small range of bodies their range of lenses is at least as big as the competition. If not in the sub $1000 range, larger.

 

[Dao]

Oh not saying 'you' said it or those were the exact words. But the implication was that because Pentax isn't one of the big two it's product range must be worse. While it's true they have a small range of bodies their range of lenses is at least as big as the competition. If not in the sub $1000 range, larger.

Oh I see ... I did not mean that at all. Don't get me wrong.

 

[blash]

Pentax have as good a range of lenses, better in some aspects, than Nikon and Canon. They have the best prime range of any of the manufacturers ( that is manufacturer produced, sub $1000, lenses) with several sub f2.0 primes varying in focal length from 31 to 77mm

Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Lens
Pentax smc FA 43 mm f1.9 Limited Lens
Pentax smc FA 50mm f1.4 Lens
Pentax smc FA 77 mm f1.8 Limited Lens
Pentax smc DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM Lens

and that's JUST the primes that are sub f2.0, there are a rake of other primes and macros all made by Pentax and all excellent quality and cheap. The 77mm is one of the best portrait lenses available, the 31mm an excellent walkabout lens. The 55mm an excellent general purpose all weather lens ( it's weathersealed). ALL sub $1000.

Sigma and Tamron also produce most, if not all, their lenses in PK fit. They know that they need to because PK is the most common mount. It's not JUST used by Pentax but several other companies have used the same mount over the years.

In short Pentax IS mainstream. It just isn't as popular as canon or nikon. The ONLY reason really to go for Nikon or Canon is if you are DEFINATLY going full frame at some point in the future. Personally if I wanted to get better IQ then I'd go for a 645, 66 or even 5x4 system because they all have FF "35mm" digital beat by a country mile.

Well to that logic, if you shoot landscape at all then you should go Nikon or Canon - eventually those FF DSLR's gotta come down in price, right? Either a few revisions down the line and the D700 a few years from now will be available for $500 used, or FF will make it to the budget DSLR segment.

Unless Pentax has plans for a FF DSLR, but I wouldn't know...

 

[Katier]

Well to that logic, if you shoot landscape at all then you should go Nikon or Canon - eventually those FF DSLR's gotta come down in price, right? Either a few revisions down the line and the D700 a few years from now will be available for $500 used, or FF will make it to the budget DSLR segment.

Unless Pentax has plans for a FF DSLR, but I wouldn't know...

Rumour is Pentax is going for a 645 DSLR which should, in theory, beat FF because there's so much space for a sensor in that format the IQ 'OUGHT' to be much better.

That said your logic seems rather flawed, can't quite see why you specifically feel a Landscape photography would want FF to shoot. Hell chances are it's one area where it really doesn't matter as you will be using a tripod and thus longer shutter speeds to allow for the lowest ISO possible. In fact if a photographer was worried about IQ on landscapes then film is the way togo, specifically Large Format.

 

[Dao]

Blash may mean the field of view. i.e Use the EF 14mm with the 5D will have a wider view.

 

[JerryPH]

That said your logic seems rather flawed, can't quite see why you specifically feel a Landscape photography would want FF to shoot. Hell chances are it's one area where it really doesn't matter as you will be using a tripod and thus longer shutter speeds to allow for the lowest ISO possible. In fact if a photographer was worried about IQ on landscapes then film is the way togo, specifically Large Format.

So a 50% wider frame would have no value? FF is not just about noise, though FF + reasonable MP amounts does aid a lot in reducing noise... FF's bigger advantage is how that FF compatible lens now shows a 50% wider shot than on that same lens on a cropped sensor camera.

A good example is 200mm... on a crop sensor camera, it is very hard to use inside a house, for example, yet my D700 + 70-200 is near perfect and very usable inside my house, where when that same lens on my D200 is unusable.

 

[blash]

So a 50% wider frame would have no value? FF is not just about noise, though FF + reasonable MP amounts does aid a lot in reducing noise... FF's bigger advantage is how that FF compatible lens now shows a 50% wider shot than on that same lens on a cropped sensor camera.

A good example is 200mm... on a crop sensor camera, it is very hard to use inside a house, for example, yet my D700 + 70-200 is near perfect and very usable inside my house, where when that same lens on my D200 is unusable.

That's exactly what I meant. The widest possible focal length for most people who don't want to sink hundreds of dollars into an ultra-wide like the 10-24mm is 18mm (i.e. on the 18-55, 18-70, 18-105 VR, 18-135). On a crop body, it's not effectively 18mm but 18mm x 1.6 crop factor is approximately 28.8mm effective focal length.

On FF though, I have a 24mm prime that I bought off eBay for $240, so it's the lens I own that will actually provide the widest image possible (it's also a very good lens for landscapes IMO - wide just to the border of ultra-wide, and it just barely distorts along the edges lending a nice focus on the center of the photograph that's not immediately consciously seen).