Regarding Marks comments about the focal length magnifier, or crop factor as it's more commonly known, whilst it's true the most dSLRs use APS-C sized senors this has been countered by lenses getting much wider.
In the days of 35mm film a 24mm lens would be classed as wide angle with the most ultra-wide lenses sitting at 14mm and Sigma now go down as low as 10mm on the lenses designed for APS-C sensors.....
the one fancy gadget i love is vr, and for nikon that's on the lens and not the body. to be able to hand hold at 300mm and/or in lowish light is awesome.
I make do with Sigma and Tamron lenses for my Nikon. The Tamron lense was purchased after a bad experience with a the Nikon equivalent, the fault, well, basically, it was crap. The Tamron was half the price and perfect for my needs, though cost was not the deciding factor.
Maybe it is that all I can afford is the budget Nikon lenses, but with them, I feel they are not as good as Sigma and Tamron.
I have a canon 350d, and bought this over its nikon rival as its smaller and body is slightly lighter. IMO dont bother with anything apart from canon or nikon, unless you have lenses that fit a different mount already.
I would buy a cheap older model (like 350d) rather than the latest body, and spend the money on a decent lens, tripod, remote release instead. Look at the lenses you want to buy in teh next x years, and let the lenses dictate your choice rather than the camera. Canon 10-22 is great for landscapes, and cheaper than nikon equivalent.
Maybe if outdoor activities photography are the primary use for the camera, one should consider purchasing something which has proven to be suitable for outdoor activities as I understand a lot of pro photographers are studio and location photographers, what there is is generally aimed at them.
Think of your use, it will like as not be carried in all weathers, festering in a back pack or belt pouch system in heavy rain, it might be subject to jolting, the occaisional bash, just think what you do when you are out in the outdoors tramping the routes, what hazards you know are there just for carrying the thing.
Camping even, a cold night that big chunk of glass gets cold and as it warms, condensation forms, you can't escape it, you always get condensation, condensation being moisture, internal electronics love it, a faster path to earth, and a screwed up camera. The batteries don't like the cold. Even screwed on protection filters, the air inside gets cold and condenses on the lens and filter surfaces
What I am saying is normal photographic conditions that exist in a day to day enviroment are not the same as what can be encountered out on the trails , the photography we seek might even qualify for extreme conditions.
Perhaps seek a camera producer that has a track record for making cameras that can withstand extreme conditions, even look what cameras are taken on expeditions and are noted for doing their job in the conditions that exist.
The best lense and the best camera body is no use if it cannot perform in the conditions in which we desire to use them.
Andy - Whilst your points are valid I think you'll find that the pro Canon/Nikon gear is designed to take a hammering and this is factored into the costs!
I'd suggest that for every pro studio photographer you'll find a photo-journalist/sports photographer who drags their kit through all sorts of weather and expects it to perform faultlessly everytime, same as wildlife and landscape photographers! Thing is because for these people their camera is their income they can justify spending tens of thousands on their kit!!!!
Pity then in all these camera reviews, there never seems to be reports on their durability in adverse conditions, or do they expect the amateurs, not to be interested in anything outside the sphere of family, holiday and event photography.
Pity then in all these camera reviews, there never seems to be reports on their durability in adverse conditions, or do they expect the amateurs, not to be interested in anything outside the sphere of family, holiday and event photography.
In the consumer arena, with the exception of the specific water/shock proof models made by Olympus/Pentax etc..., the manufacturers won't make any claims as to the durability because it is very hard to quantify. You could market a product as resistant to light showers and gentle knocks, but when does a light shower become a slightly less light shower? When does a gentle knock become a knock?
This then means that the magazines can't rate a product for durability as they would be in the firing line when it came to a dispute over a malfunctioning product:
Owner "What Camera said this model is moderately durable and would stand up to the occasional knock/drop"
Canon "We make no claims as to the cameras durability and we can't comment on the reviews in What Camera....."
My Pentax K10D is 'weather sealed' but there is no true definiation of what the means? I apply common sense when I'm out and about and if it starts to rain I'll decide whether the camera needs to go away or not. That said I've seen photos of people holding their K10Ds under the kitchen tap and they still work afterwards!!
I'd suggest that the 'weather sealing' on a D3 or 1D MkIII is probably far more comprehensive than my K10D, but I don't know whether Canon/Nikon make and hard and fast claims? I just think it's expected that a £5000 camera will stand up to pretty hard life!?!?
Pity then in all these camera reviews, there never seems to be reports on their durability in adverse conditions, or do they expect the amateurs, not to be interested in anything outside the sphere of family, holiday and event photography.
In the consumer arena, with the exception of the specific water/shock proof models made by Olympus/Pentax etc..., the manufacturers won't make any claims as to the durability because it is very hard to quantify.
The Olympus E-1 was sealed to IEC Standard publication 529 IPX1, the only DSLR as far as I'm aware that was sealed to an actual standard. The E-3 is also sealed as are the mid and top range lenses. No point having the body sealed if water gets into the lenses or into the body via the lens mount.
You'll see Pro Sports Togs using these type of covers at most sporting events if it's raining. The problem isn't only the body, the lens needs to be rainproof too.
I've got a Nikon with lenses from 10mm to 500mm and they are extremely heavy plus you have the hassle of changing them.
Buying compromise lenses like an 18-200, unless you spend a huge amount, puts your quality back in the range of the new superzooms but with less 'zoom'.
I use a Fuji S8000fd when out walking as it has the range for landscapes to bird photography, weighs nothing & costs less than a lens for the Nikon.
Similarly in my birdwatching I have an Opticron ES80ED scope which is the size & weight of my thigh and needs a tripod - I mostly use however an Opticron Mighty Midget which collapses and weighs nothing.
All very well buying this fancy gear but it can be a waste if you arrive home exhausted, didn't go as far as you wanted to, left other useful gear at home, felt like a pack mule.
I submit record bird pics, have won competitions etc etc lots of which was done with a 3 Megapixel Minolta which you wouldn't spit on.
