Help choosing slr-bike/ski/outdoor

[agtaylor]

Hi all, I feel like Im starting to outgrow my point and shot and would like to take my photograpgy a little more seriously. I have been reading up on slrs and trying to figure out my best option but usually confuse myself more. I understand that for my first dslr I shouldnt worry too much about the body since it will be outdated rather quickly and use that money on lenses. Im not too much of a weight weenie but I will be taking it skiing, mtn biking, climbing, and hiking. Seeing as how I will want to shoot alot of action speed will be a consideration. I live in the northwest so Ive also been looking for one that doesnt loose too much resolution in low light situations. Ive been considering the 400d and 350d but cant decide if the 400d is that much better. Also the d40 since price dropped on it a bit. Open to olympus/pentax/others but dont know where to start. Thanks for any advice. :thumbsup:

[Photo-John]

Bellingham! I've ridden up there - on Whidbey and Galbraith. Although we decided you must need a guide to find the good stuff at galbraith because it seemed like we just rode 15 miles of fire road. That was in 1999.

Ok - 400D vs 350D
The main things are that the 400D has a better auto focus system, better high ISO performance, and the sensor cleaning system. People who've never shot with a digital SLR won't appreciate the value of the sensor cleaning. But having done lots of dusty mountain bike shooting and had lots of photos with dust in the sky, I think it's invaluable.

You referred to the D40. There's always confusion because Nikon name their cameras the same and just swicth the position of the letter "D." So are you talking about the EOS 40D or the Nikon D40? I'm using the Nikon D40x right now and I think it's pretty nice. Unless you wanted to buy into the Nikon system, though, I'd still prefer the 400D.

I'm probably going to buy and EOS 40D in the next few days because I need a faster camera. I have the first EOS-1D but the resolution is too low. Even though my 1D is super fast, I'd rather use my 400D for the resolution and image quality. But the EOS 40D is looking really good.

That's all I've got the energy for right now. I'm sure you have more questions. I'll be here, Ask away. Always good to have another outdoor photographer here :-)

[agtaylor]

Nice, from what Ive heard alot has been built between 99 and now but I just moved up for school so some exploring is in order. Always have B.C. 20 minutes away too.

Sounds like the 400d is worth a little extra cash over the 350d if not just for the cleaning. Can definitely appreciate the dust factor. I was referring to the Nikon D40 or D40x but for some reason I kept coming back to Canon.

Between the 400d and the d40 I think I would be better off the the 400d?

Last night I started reading more about olympus after reading a little piece in a magazine on them. The E-510 looks like it might be a good fit too. The e-510 is slightly less expensive then the 400d. They both have sensor cleaning. They are both 10 megapixels. The olympus has built in image stabilization which could be a nice touch but may be a moot point when shooting mtn biking/skiing due to fast shutter speeds. Their lcds seem to be on par and the olympus weighs less. I could not find the shutter lag on the olympus though. If I remember correctly they were about equal at higher isos too. Would temperature be a factor to consider with either one since I plan on shooting lots of skiing/outdoors during the winter? There seems to be a large selection of lenses for the 4/3rds system but I know Canon has an equally impressive selection so now Im torn between the two. Sorry if thats all jumbled/hard to understand.

Thanks for the help John. Always enjoyed your images on mtbr and around. Actually how I found this site.

[agtaylor]

Well now I learned I could possibly get a 30d somewhere in the 400 range. Should I try and jump on that offer or would it be wise to choose a system, get a more entry level body, some nice lenses and upgrade the body later?

[Photo-John]

Well now I learned I could possibly get a 30d somewhere in the 400 range. Should I try and jump on that offer or would it be wise to choose a system, get a more entry level body, some nice lenses and upgrade the body later?

I prefer the 400D over the 30D. The dust-reduction system is one of the main reasons. Also, for riding and skiing, I like the smaller 400D body. However, if you think you need the 5 FPS speed of the 30D, then it might be the better choice. Most of the rest of 30D features aren't that valuable to me. It's only the speed that I care about. And I lived without it for the past year. I shot Sea Otter, Downieville, and lots of other mountain bike stuff with my 400D and it worked just fine. I think buying the 400D and spending your money on better optics and then concentrating on your technique until the camera is a problem is the best strategy.

[cyberlord]

To me the glass is what makes the image and the camera for the most part just records it and acts as the user interface. But that's just my opinion. In reality it's the photographer that makes the picture.

Camera bodies these days, while they do make advances in technology, are quite capable and should last quite a while.

Go to the camera store and handle some of the different bodies. You may find you (edit)dislike(edit) one particular body style because it doesn't fit your hand or doesn't feel right. You may love another. Only handling a camera body will you be able to tell.