Is it the lens or the body

What is more important. Eventually I would like an SLR but not sure what to get. For example. Is a D70 good enough with a great lens or should I go for the D200 with a mediocre lens? Is there a major difference between the two bodies?

from what i've heard, its all about the lense. I'd personally rather get the d70 with a kick ass lense then a d200.

I'm not personally familar with the nikon line of cameras but you can get some good third party lenses such as sigmas (thier ex line) that provide a very good image. It would take someone with a really good eye to actually tell the difference.

Alot of it depends on what you are wanting to do? With the current market... resale has been pretty good for the dslr's. You could always upgrade a body or lenses for that matter. I'd just try to avoid "cheap" lenses. I'm assuming most of what you'll be shooting will be outdoor, daytime but its always nice to have fast glass. Hope my rambling made sense.

I would think there has got to be a major difference in IQ between a 2 year old 6 mp sensor and an almost 11 mp current generation sensor irregardless of what lens you use. If you resized a D200 image down to 6 mp using decent software it's going to look awfully good compared to a straight 6mp image even if the glass isn't the best. I'm all for good lenses but when you're talking double the resolution, well even good glass isn't going to overcome that. Add to that the performance / build differences between the two and it's hard for me to rationalize that thinking. The D200 is the first Nikon that I would actually consider owning instead of a Canon. But as pointed out above there is no substitute for fast glass if you're shooting in low light or indoor sports especially since the Nikons aren't known for their high ISO performance.

When I look at some of my old shots from the 10D & 70-200 f2.8L vs similar with any lens on my 12.8 mp 5D, well let's just say there is no comparison when resized down.

Ramble on.

Not sold on Nikon either. I guess another comparison would be getting either a Rebel or 30D.

Most of my shots would be taking photos of my kids. I just don't feel my point and shoot camera is cutting it (Canon SD550)

What exactly does fast glass mean. I know it has to do with the f stops but would that allow me to take a clearer photos of people in motion?

"Fast glass" is usually a term bestowed on lenses with maximum apertures of f2.8 or larger (f1.2, f1.4, f1.8 or f2). A large aperture accomplishes 2 things:

1) It allows for a higher shutter speed in low light which can be very helpful if the subject is moving and you want to freeze the action.

2) Larger apertures provide better "bokeh" or background blur which is generally what you stive for in sports or portrait images.

It is pretty much accepted that Canon Dslrs provide 2-3 stops better High ISO performance then similar Nikon bodies allowing you to get usuable shots in much lower light. I routinely shoot ISO1600-3200 with my Canon 5D and am amazed by the relative lack of noise. Here is a good review of the D200 compared to the Canons.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/

Any idea what kind of budget you are looking at? That might help with some suggestions. Now I'm going to make my comparisons in Canon DSLR's because thats what I'm familar with. For instance... now that the 30D has been released you can pick up a good second hand 20D for a good price. My co-worker had a rebel for a while and quickly upgraded... in my opinion the build quality seems a little cheap... although in comparison to the price you pay I guess there's a reason for that. Now as far as lenses are concerned... you will pay quite a lot for a nice L lens at f/2.8, I would maybe suggest something along the lines of Sigmas 70-200 f2.8 ex. That lens is also made for nikons if you're leaning in that direction.

To add to what Rich mentioned... I started with a 10D also and have since moved up to a 1DMII and even though its only a 2mp difference unlike the 5D's 6mp difference... the image quality is not even comparble. The ISO seems much better also.

The point and shoot you have is a great little camera... I personally carry around the SD400.. you know... just incase. But if you are looking for more 'professional' type photos... you just need the added control of your aperture/shutter speed.

My budget is whatever I can convince the wife that buying X camera is worth it. Obviously something like a 1DMII is out of the question but I can dream. I guess me question is if there is much of a difference between a lower DSLR (D70, Rebel) and a higher end body (20D, D200)?

I do enjoy photography and know about composition, lighting and posing but when it comes to F Stops, exposure and ISO speeds I get totally lost. But I am willing to learn.

I do like my point and shoot but when I try to take portraits with lighting I seem to not get very good clarity when my little son starts moving around. I tell my wife it is the limitation of the camera but it is probably me. All I know is that the depth of field I see in the DSLRs are much better than what i can get from my little Canon.

I would like to stay in the Canon line but everytime I go into the camera stores they seem to push the Nikon.

Ap,

If you buy a Canon try costco. You can only buy the 20D on their web site though.

Well the way it sounds... knowing that you'd like to go with canon... I'd suggest the 20D. Anymore I dont see a huge difference in price compared to the rebel... and I think you'd be much happier with the 20D. Now when it comes to Fstop/shutter speed/ISO... it can be tricky to pick up at first but fairly easy once you get the hang of it. And there are vast amounts of books and online tutorials that break that sort of thing down.

I'm taking a guess on the pics you're trying to take of your son but I'd say you are shooting indoor, low light and using the on camera flash. Thats where the point and shoot's really lack. Now the dslr's can perform much better but it will depend on a few things. One is a lens that is capable of f2.8 or better. Another good accessory is an off camera strobe. Also, the good thing about canon is thier ability to shoot at high ISO's with fairly low noise.

I've personally had great success with purchases on ebay and I would recommend a good second hand 20D if cost is an issue. Another very good site is bhphoto.com

If you have any specific questions or need a quicker response feel free to email me... I could ramble on about the stuff all day.

i just got the nikkon d50 with the regular 28-80mm lense i also got a macro 70-300mm zoom lense, in my oppinion i think the d50 is a bad ass body for a good price, it takes amazing pictures. so all in all i think that it is mostly the lense

I have to go behind chris. The nikon d50 has a pretty good punch for the buck. I would go with the d50 or d70s if I were you. Both are great models. The d50 has some pros over the d70s but the d70 also has some pros over the d50. Only the d50 doesnt cost that much. If you are going for the d50. Dont worry it will have everything you need and more.

good luck

Do you have any experience with a Nikon D200 or D2? I know the D50 can take good photos but how does it compare to a D200 or D2?

Her is a review over the d200 and d100 and d2.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/

here is the d50 to the d70

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/

There is less functions on the d50 and d70 than the d200 or 100 or even d2. If you are just begining, go with the d50. It will help you get use to all the functions. And it all depends. I have seen some great shots taken with the d50.

Once you get use to all the setting you will be taking pictures like a pro. You just have to find sweet spots and what is right for certain lighting.

Here is a forum that you can ask any additional questions.

http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi

Feel free with asking anymore question.

Hope that helps

Does anybody find it necessary to shoot wakeboarding with a shutter speed over 1200, with an f-stop under f4?

yes on both counts. although, i've only brought my real camera out a couple of times.....

(Does anybody find it necessary to shoot wakeboarding with a shutter speed over 1200, with an f-stop under f4? )

I don't find it necessary but I have a few times just to see how it would work out. I find 1000 to 1200 works just fine for Me and I think the depth of field would be to shallow to keep the whole rider in focus with any thing wider than f/4.

" think the depth of field would be to shallow to keep the whole rider in focus with any thing wider than f/4."

2.8 works just fine for me...

Those look great but I wonder how they would come out with a rider that wasn't so upright ?

You can see the DOF by looking at the amount of wake/board spray/water that is still in focus in front of and behind the tiny riders.

There's plenty of DOF for non-upright riders. It's just a matter of focusing the shot properly.

I'm surprised that it's so sharp that far in front and behind the rider.

Thanks for getting Me straight on that.

f2.8 will work for many shots but the further the rider is back from the boat or the more zoomed in you are the harder it will become to controll DOF. Frame a rider at 85-90' tight (zoomed in over 140-170mm on a 1.6X) and you'll have trouble getting the entire rider in focus. But the bottom line it's all about what you need or can afford. It's always better to own a fast lens if one can swing the dollars.

You do get nice background blur at f2.8 as those images attest.

"Frame a rider at 85-90' tight (zoomed in over 140-170mm on a 1.6X) and you'll have trouble getting the entire rider in focus."

I looked at the EXIF data on those shots and the focal length was 200, 200, 190, respectively. 1.5 crop.

I've shot many non-wakeboarding subjects in the 85-90 ft ++ range with similar results. You can keep the subject in focus despite the shallow DOF, it just gets more difficult as you really have to watch your focus area(s).

I would like to see 100% pixel crops of those as well as it's hard to check critical focus on shots resized down for the web.

Here's an old 10D shot cropped to 100% pixels. This one was at 120mm f5.6. You can see the focus change from the handle back. I believe this was shot with the 70-200 f2.8L I used to own. If I had shot this at f2.8 I guarantee you'd see the difference in focus even more. Of course resized for the web it will never show. Blow it up to poster size and you'd see it. I guess it all depends how much detail you're looking for.

Here's the actual shot BTW resized for the web, obviously most of the detail is lost.

Here are a couple at 200mm f/4 f/4.5 & f/6.3...


f/4


f/4.5


f/6.3

Is it the size of the wave or the motion in the ocean.

We can debate for hours.