What DSLR to compliment rangefinder for nauture/sport shooting

[gmb]

About 2 years ago I bought my first rangefinder, a used M7, soon followed by a

used Xpan, and recently by a M8. I liked the rangefinder concept immediately

and haven't touched a SLR since then -- and actually not missed an SLR at all.

 

Recently, however, I went with my kids to a zoo and while the M8 and 90

elmarit outfit produced a few decent shots, I was missing a longer lens. Same

happened when I tried to cover my kids soccer matches.

 

So I wonder what would be a good DSLR to compliment my rangefinders, in

particular with respect to nature/sport shooting. My current idea would be a

Canon 30D (or with some patience it successor which everybody seems to say

should come out sooner rather than later) and a 100-400 zoom plus a shorter

zoom. I think the crop factor would actually make sense for this type of

shooting, and a 5D is just too expensive for this limited use. Leica R8 or 9

with digital back also too expensive and the non-availability of autofocus

makes it less attractive for this type of shooting.

[elmarfudd]

It sounds like you've gotten this figured out already. I'm not really sure how one DSLR would necessarily complement a rangefinder better than another. The question would probably be better phrased as "which DSLR should I get" and posted in the digital, Nikon, or EOS forum.

[doug herr]

Don't expect the image quality of the 30D with 100-400 zoom to equal what you've seen with the M8.

[richam]

If you haven't missed the SLR, and you're going to have a long zoom essentially glued to the

camera, why do you need a DSLR? The Leica V-Lux or equivalent Panasonic DMCFZ50 are

moderately priced and take you up to 420mm (35mm equivalent). Thats about as long as

you can get without using a tripod, and you don't have to worry about mirror slap. I have the

Digilux 2 and a Nikon D50 with 24-120mm lens; with crop factor that makes 36-180mm

(35mm equivalent). I ran some side by side tests tripod mounted using long shutter speeds.

I got consistently better and sharper shots with the mirror-less D2, even using the VR feature

on the Nikon lens. At the focal lengths you are considering, any mirror slap distortion would

be amplified.

[x-ray]

The canon 30D and 100-400 IS are excellent choices. Remember you have a 1.6x factor with the sensor in the 30D. You might even think about the 70-200 IS f4 or 2.8. The f4 version is smallish and especially sharp.

 

No the Canon won't perform like the M8. It has no banding or IR issues, 5 auto exposure modes, auto focus, shoots faster, writes faster, much less high ISO noise and the AWB is excellent. Don't forget the price is a small fraction of the M8.

[doug herr]

"<I>No the Canon won't perform like the M8</I>"

 

True. The image detail provided by the 30D and 100-400 is less than the M8 will deliver. What's a Canonista doing here?

[don_e]

"What's a Canonista doing here?"

 

They have a bot that scans the forums for instances of "M8"

[paulstenquist]

You might want to look at the Pentax K10D. It's higher resolution than the Canon 30D at 10.2 megapixels, and it has in-body anti-shake. So even with a moderately priced zoom, you get anti-shake performance. That's quite valuable when shooting with long glass. The build quality is excellent, and it's priced at around $900. The bargain-priced Pentax FA 80-320/4.5-5.6 is a respectable performer. Here's a shot at 320 mm:

http://www.photo.net/photo/3113513&size=lg. The considerably more expensive Pentax FA 300/4.5 is a superb lens. The Sigma 50-500 is said to be quite good and is available in Pentax mount as are numerous other Sigma and Tokina zooms.

Paul

[x-ray]

What size are you printing your images? If it's greater than the default file size then it may or may not matter and if it's less it won't make any difference how many pixels you have. You'll most likely never know the difference in resolution between any of the above cameras.

[keith_lubow]

A rangfinder with a wide lens and an SLR with a long lens was a fairly standard setup carried by many photojournalists for many years. Now most just use two zooms for general use. I would suggest the Canon 200mm f/2.8L. For the price, it is one of the best deals avilable in Canon lenses. 200 is a wonderful and versatile focal length. It is my most-often-used telephoto lens. When I shot the Griffith Park fire last month in Los Angeles, I had one camera with a wide to tele zoom, and another with a fixed 200. The lightweight 200 was easy to use, and made for some shots that probably would not have got with a large, heavy, and slow tele zoom.

<br><BR>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6064675-lg.jpg">

<br><BR>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6064704-lg.jpg">

<br><BR>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6064712-lg.jpg">

<br><br>

Keep in mind these are scans from negs shot with the old FD version of the lens. The new EF L-series one is probably even better, and has autofocus.

<br><br>

Keith

[keith_lubow]

Forgot to finish my spiel....

 

What I was going to say is that the 2.8 aperture combined with the low price gives you plenty of money for both TCs, which I think is a better option than the 100-400. Also, it is cropped to have the field of view of a 320 2.8 on that camera. 1.4x gives you an approx. 450 f/4, and 2x gives you a 640 5.6.

[fehutchings]

Throw in my 2 cents worth: I have a Sony Alpha DSLR with the kit lens and a 75-300 zoom - equipvalent to 125 to 450mm in 35mm talk . Also a Sony 50mm f:1.4 - actually a 75mm again due to sensor size. (gotta have that low light/portrait combo.) It's a 10mp setup and total cost is less than $1300. It's less than $1k if you forget about the 50mm. The BIG thing I like about the camera is that the image stabilization is in the body not the lens. Any lens I use has the benefits of image stab - and it makes handheld shots a whole lot better/easier at slower shutter speeds. I don't know about f:2.8 long lenses - they are huge and difficult to lug around; especially if you have to watch the kids at the same time. Also use a Manfrotto 728B tripod ($125.00) more than I thought I would.

[fehutchings]

An alternative solution maybe. Have you considered the "superzoom" digital cameras. There are a few out there that might suit your purpose, and have image stabilization built in. The Panasonic line with their fine Leica lenses and the Sony DSC-H series with Zeiss lenses come to mind. I bought my first Sony because of the Zeiss Tie-in. You say you are already a leica owner - Is there a Leica superzoom out there? I am not sure. I don't think you have to give up much in the way of f:stop and one camera on your shoulder beats carrying bag of stuff around. The cameras I've mentioned all have image stab. Good Luck

[marc_bergman1]

"The image detail provided by the 30D and 100-400 is less than the M8 will deliver."

 

Is there a 100-400mm zoom for the M8?

 

"What's a Canonista doing here?"

 

Didn't the OP ask about the Canon 30D?

 

As to the original question, I would go to the best camera store in your area and physically try the cameras. If you want something to compliment your M7, find a camera that is intuitive to use. The Canon 30D, Nikon D200, and the Pentax K10D are good places to start in so far as performance is concerned, but if they don't fit your shooting style then they wont fill your needs.

 

That is why camera tests are limited in value. You really need to have the camera in hand.

[roger_dunham]

IMHO you start with the intended subject ..sounds like young children and their activities.

For most sports you need the auto focus , zoom and telephoto capabilities . The issue isn t

getting the "best " quality ..its getting the picture . The above recommendations follow

conventional wisdom on the top rated mid priced DSLR. I have used both the Canon and the

Nikon ...as an M8 user my bet is that you will like the Nikon D200 better because of the

smaller size and better feel. I would also bet that the 70-200 2.8 is ideal for soccer. I think

you will also like the DSLR better for flash although you can do this equally well with the M8 .

So my response is really a recommendation for a M8 user..not something tailored for a

general DSLR forum.

[paulstenquist]

But you should know that the Pentax K10D has the same sensor as the Nikon D200, yet it sells for quite a bit less. The body is a bit smaller, and it grips quite a bit nicer. The viewfinder is a bit brighter. The Pentax also adds in-body image stabilization. You can't get that from Nikon or Canon.

Paul

[keith_lubow]

I have to disagree that a 70-200 is good for soccer. Shooting daytime AYSO matches with a 1D, the first game I tried the 70-200 and a 1.4x TC (127-364mm equivalent on that body). I found myself wishing I had the 2x TC. I had to crop quite a lot, and almost never pulled back the focal length when shooting. Acheiving tight shots with positive autofocus and a nice shallow depth of field was not possible with the shots framed so loosely, even at maximum aperture. This is at amateur soccer games, with plenty of freedom to move about. Soccer fields don't seem so large until you start shooting. A 400mm 5.6 would have been ideal. I would say 2.8, but the 5.6 is easily handholdable and very cheap. I still suggest the fixed 200 and both TCs.

 

Keith

[natures-pencil]

It sounds like you will not be using your SLR/long lens combo very much so you aren't

going to get the practice it take to hold really steady. For limited use a very fast lens is

likely to be too costly, so you are going to need image stabilisation. One decision you

need to make is whether to go for IS built into the body (Pentax) or the lenses (Canon and

Nikon).

 

A problem shooting at soccer games is that you could easily use focal lengths from

100mm (or less) to 600mm (or more) - 35mm equivalents, depending how far away the

action is. That is why you often see professionals at soccer games with three camera

bodies and a different focal length prime on each.

 

You are going to have to compromise somehow, either by picking the most useful focal

length, or by messing about changing lenses and/or teleconverters quite often, or by

making do with a zoom and putting up with smaller apertures, greater weight, and one

more control (the zoom ring) to distract you from the shot!

[jerry_kirkwood]

<i>The canon 30D and 100-400 IS are excellent choices. Remember you have a 1.6x factor with the sensor in the 30D. You might even think about the 70-200 IS f4 or 2.8. The f4 version is smallish and especially sharp.

 

No the Canon won't perform like the M8. It has no banding or IR issues, 5 auto exposure modes, auto focus, shoots faster, writes faster, much less high ISO noise and the AWB is excellent. Don't forget the price is a small fraction of the M8.</i></p>Hehe, great points. Got a real LMAO out of someone calling you a Canonista. Congrats on winning the LHSA raffle BTW.

[jerry_kirkwood]

<i>The image detail provided by the 30D and 100-400 is less than the M8 will deliver.</i></p>Technically there's no argument about that, but it'd take a heckuva lot of practice to gain the same proficiency with a 400 Telyt on a Visoflex on an M8 shooting a moving target.

[doug herr]

"Jerry", nowhere did I mention that the OP should use a 400mm Telyt, nor for that matter did

I say the 30D is a bad idea. Just don't expect the same image quality.

[x-ray]

Thanks Jerry Kirkwood! No Canonista here! I do like my Canon digital for my commercial assignemnts but have used Leicas of near 40 years and still have 6 M's that I shoot every week. All of my documentary work is still B&W film with a good 60% shot with the M's.

[gmb]

Thanks for all the suggestions and ideas. BTW, until I started my rangefinder adventure 2 years ago, I shot Canons (AE1 and later E50) for over 20 years. So I am somewhat of a Canonista myself.

[jerry_kirkwood]

That's a badge most of the world's most acclaimed photographers wear these days. Maybe that'll change with the Leica R10 <giant wink>.

[doug herr]

A Canonista is a Canon owner who quotes manufacturer's spec sheets and recites statistics to 'prove' his equipment purchase was a wise one. It might have been a wise purchase but it ain't the spec sheets that make it so. It's how a camera is used that makes one better than another - for that particular use.