Best D-slr for skiing

What is your absolute maximum budget?

maybe around 800 maybe more

get canon 40d body, 50mm 1.8 and a 70-200 f4L to start....that would probably run you 1200 or less if you buy used.

chepest you can find a used 40d is at least in my area (TO) is $780, thats at least an 8+ level from a legit retailer like Henry's not including craigslist. Also 70-200 f4 will go around 700 with tax, i wouln't go used on lenses, but your decision.  50mm you can pick up from a legit retailer for $80-100.  I am saying at least 1800 at minimum, if not less for that.

All these numbers were research and are correct as of today.

I will agree with you though that the 40d is a great camera although and really at its price is great, but maybe something like the xsi would be better if your beginning photography. Although the 70-200 is a great lens to have, i picked up the 70-200 f2.8 today and its absolutely incredible, but i would guess that seeing as i am coming from the 350d and sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 haha. If you have any other questions hit me up with a PM.

im new to photography and have been wanting to get into it

i am a canon user so of course i have a bias towards canon, so maybe a nikon person can give him advice on them, but for you ability i would suggest something from the rebel series, i mean if you look at my sig, all those photos there were taken with the 350d (xt) which is dirt cheap , so xsi is where i would put you with your price its a great beginners camera, with lots of room to improve.

get the canon xsi, its very difficult to tell the difference of quality from the xsi and the 40d, very very comparable. only difference is little more customization and magnesium body on the 40d. the xsi is an all around great camera, and hardened plastic body (still tough).  If you have money go for what my man jmickels said, but i think xsi would suit you just fine.

Being a Canon user myself (see 2008 pics in my sig) I have a bias towards them.  If you can't afford the XSi I would recommend either the XTi or the XT both of which can be found pretty cheaply now if you look around.  Lens options are really up to you.  You will want a relatively wide angle lens and a telephoto for those other shots.  Wide angle wise you will want to be able to at least 18mm (preferably lower) and for telephoto at least 200mm.  The Canon 70-200mm L lenses are you best bet but for $800 with body are probably out of your price range ($600-1550 depending which lens you get). 

The XTi with the kit 18-55mm lens (it isn't great but you can still get could pictures with it) is $500 on Amazon (compared to $640 for the XSi with the kit lens (18-55mm IS)).

For the telephoto you'll want something with a low F value (quicker lens).  Now for $300 this is quite hard so you may think about wanting to stretch your budget a bit.  I personally have the 55-250mm IS (F4-F5.5) which is overall a good lens but is probably a bit slow for sports shooting although I have used it to good effect (not on skiing yet only rugby).  It is within your budget at $220 on Amazon and is as good a telephoto as you'll get for that price.

Not used Nikon but I have heard good things about the D80 and bodies start at around $550 (you can get a kit with the 18-135mm for $650 on Amazon).  Although you might look at getting the 18-200 which is a good all round lens but its around $600 so again probably out of your price range.

Not heard anything that great about the D60 and the D40x is as good but you'd better ask a Nikon user than a Canon one about their cameras.

   Ok, this might raise a few eyebrows but have you considered picking up a second-hand Nikon D70? Before I get jumped on by the folks thinking I'm just a fanboy D70 owner, I'm not. I actually shoot with a Canon 40D and I really like. I've gotta admit though, that I'm starting to throw a few envious glances the way of the Nikon boys.
     Are you looking for a first DSLR? If you are, I really think the D70 could be an awesome choice. The main things that are likely to put you off are that it's only 6MP and 3fps. With regard to the resolution, it really doesn't matter. I know you hear a lot of people say it but don't get caught up in the megapixel race! A 6MP DSLR is waaaay different to a 6MP compact. There's no getting around the fact that 3fps isn't too fast. Again though, I don't think this is a bad thing for a first DSLR as it'll teach you to be way better at anticipating the shot and that's an important skill. My 40D fires at 6.5fps but there really aren't many shots that I've got with this that I don't think I could have got with careful use of my old 350D (rebel XT).
     Right, now the main reason that I've suggested the D70 over other second hand DSLRs is something that's easy to overlook and may or may not be important to you. This is going to take a bit of explaining so bere with me.
    
     A hell of a lot of the ski photos you see with real edgey wow factor are shot with flash (either on camera or off camera) where the rider seems bright and the ambient light seems kinda darkened down (see Dan Carr's website and you'll see what I mean). The D70 is (as far as I know) the last camera that had a native flash sync speed of 1/500th of a second meaning you can use flash with any shutter speed slower than 1/500th. Virtually all cameras since then have been 1/250th. This is really important for balancing flash with ambient light as it means that you can use the same flashgun to balance a day that's twice as bright. It also means you're way less likely to get motion blur on your flash shots. For a proper explanation of what I mean, check out this link:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm

     This is pretty complicated stuff so, if this is your first DSLR, you'll probably be thinking I'm a nutter but I guarantee, If you like your sports photography, you'd be grateful for it in time. Also, for the saving you got by buying a second hand D70 over say, a 40D, you could pick up a couple of Vivitar 285HV flashes (about $90 a pop) and cheap Chinese ebay wireless triggers and be ready to start submitting to mags!

    As I said, I shoot a 40D and I do really like it. However, I think the D70 would be able to do 95% of what the 40D does at a fraction of the cost and I'd happily pay EXTRA money for that 1/500th sync speed.
    Anyway, in general, I'd look more at the whole brand that you end up buying into, whether it be Canon or Nikon or whoever else, rather than just the one model you decide to get as, once you've got you're camera and lenses, it's pretty hard to switch over. In my case, the D3 has really got me liking the look of Nikon at the moment.

Damn thats a big post! Sorry for hogging page space! Hope it helps you out.

Ross

Yeah i have to agree with most of the stuff you say,  amazing shots have come from the d70 and even a d40 has taken some of the most amazing shots ive seen and make sure you spend money on good lenses a bad lense will just make the camera bad so theres no point in buying a really expensive camera with out really expensive lenses which will prob not be in your price range to do.

i have d200 as a first camera and i am happy with it but i have to say i could have prob settled with a d70 or even d40 but d40 doesnt except a lot of the newer lenses and thats prob a no no for everyone now a days.

Canon 40D is lovely, and the 20D's aren't bad if you can still find them. I love Canon and shoot with a Canon so I am a bias. Nikon's are good though, minus the D40(eww). And has anyone seen the 50D? Oh my god, I want it soooo bad, but the body alone is around 1100$ but with the 12800 ISO, the 15.1 MP and the 6.3 FPS and not to mention Live View, it's well worth it if your serious about photography. It's also built like a tank with it's metal body that is quite similar to the 40D actually. But that's if you have the money, if not, go for the 40D or the XSi.

I agree with the flash issue on the d70.
However I think there are advantages to the canon 20D or 30D that out weigh that.
The first one is the frames per second. yes you can shoot some dope photos without it and I have. And it will teach you to time it. but if you get a camera that can only do 3 frames a second you will be forced to get a new body if you ever want to do a sequence, which I gaurrenty will happen before you get to the point where you want to do heavy flash work.
and then we get to flash work.  yes there is no doubt around it 1/500 is great, and I would love to be able to have it. However, if your popping a flash you can stop motion at 1/250. just up the power of your strobe, close your lens, and work with a low ISO.  Also when you upgrade out of that body (which you will) all the new nikons are 1/250 including the D3x and D3, so just go with canon)
Also I would not base your first body off of something to do with flash work.  try and stay away from using flashes for the first few months and just try and use the avalible light, it will make you a lot more creative, as well as a much better photographer.

The other reason I would go with the canon 20d or 30d over the nikon d70 is lenses.  yes over all nikon lenses are a hair better then canon glass.  However to get high quality nikon glass you need to fork over some money.  As far as I know nikon does not have an equivelent of the 70-200 4L. (w/ or w/out IS), this means to get a high quality tele you have to go with the very expensive 80-200 2.8G, like wise no f4 high quality wide angle zoom.  For canon the 17-40 4L, and the 70-200 4L, are  relatively cheap and produce great results, combine them with the supper cheap 50 1.8 and you have a great high quality lens set for less then the cost of the nikon 80-200 2.8.

Canon also has much higher quality at high ISO levels then nikon does (especailly at lower end dSLR)

So my suggestion is go with a used or refurbished canon 20d or 30d, it will be a long time before you need to upgrade. 

I have shot with a wide variety of cameras
can someone explain to me how one would be better for skiing...
higher FPS is the only thing.

wow, camera stuff is pricey where you are, ive seen 40d bodies on craigslist for like 650-700 and the 70-200 f4 L goes for around 400-450 on craigslist and the 50mm is like 40-50 on craigslist...these are all used prices...and yes the 70-200 2.8 is a great lens i have one and I also have a 40d and a 1d....

for skiing? under 800 bucks? you cuold go with anything canon or nikon.

like jordan said,

they're all under 5, if not 3 frames per second. unless you buy a battery pack which is out of your price range. so nikon or canon, what ever you prefere, maybe go compare in person what you feel more comfortable with. As for a telephoto in that price range you're basically dreamin' bud. Search www.KEH.com    its a used photography equipment site that is verryyy trust worthy and lets you  know the condition of the product and you could probably find a cheaper 70-300 on there. maybe not quite in your range after spending say 600 on a body+18-55kit lens but, if you're lucky you can find it.

Otherwise in genereal i wouldn't trust buying used equipment, because you don't know if it was a pro hptography who used it day in day out smashing shutter buttons all day every day, or a guy who used it for 20 minutes a year. But if its a risk you're willing to take, go for it.

yeah faster FPS and fast object focus tracking also helps and fast flash sync helps for night shots, and maybe more points of focus since you have a moving object and its hard to get the picture right on so theres more of a chance it will focus on what is moving and the right thing

"best dlsr" for skiing will not have a 4-5.6 lens on it either. (although you probably don't even know what that means)

you're going to want to shoot with a 2.8 lens (again you probably have no idea)
a 2.8 lens will run you around ...$1800

than again!!!!!!!!
shooting at an aperture of 2.8 it will be hard to get the right focus point you're looking for with action.
unless you manual focus ...but that takes skillll

That's not strictly true...

please,
plenty of photos are published that were shot with kit lenses,

you don't need 2.8 for everything.  You rarely need it on wide angles because they let so much light in.  It can be nice on telephotos due to the light issues, but is rarely necessary for depth of field. 

and if you have a 2.8 lens does not mean you want to shoot there. 

there is nothing wrong with the f/4 lenses.  Yes if your shooting profesionally it makes sense to get the 70-200 2.8, but alot of very highly regarded photographers shoot with the 17-40 f/4. 

Also  plenty of great cameras come with kit lenses.  you really don't need to try and impress others on here with all your (you have no idea) stuff.

the canon f2.8 non is is the sharpest of the 70-200 series though, just saying...its worth the money if you are serious about photography.

ya but I doubt this kid is $1800 for a long lens serious, I think saying that all others aren't worth your money is sending him the wrong message. I think he would be just as happy starting with something like a 20d or 30d and a kit lens.

Kit lens would be fine for what he would be looking at.  A 20/30/40D would also be a good bet but if not available a XT/XTi would work although at 3fps or less it is slow for sequence shots but otherwise it should be fine.  Lens wise there isn't an excellent telephoto in the price range.  Of all the 'cheap' ones the 55-250 IS is probably the best, from what I have read in reviews (and been told) before I bought it.  It has better image quality than the cheap 70-300 and has IS (for what it's worth) and in some places is quite a bit cheaper than most of the 300mm range tele's.  Then again something like the 28-135mm or the 17-85mm would be good options for one lens although more expensive than the kit lens and a 55-250.

Woah... Chill bro.

allen for the win!

really its true though anything with a kit lens is fine for you when u have the kit lenses and shoot with them for a while then soon you will know what you need because you should go by what you know after you start using an dslr, not from what people tell you

For the money, I think the 20D is a hell of a camera. I think you can get it used for about 400USD on eBay. I'd much rather shoot with it than a rebel. It's a solid piece of equipment. I've had it for about a year, and so far overall I've been pleased.

i would say go with with the xsi or 40d
i shoot with the 40d and absolutely love it i have a 28- 135mm lens on it and i like the range alot.  i dont have the 50 mm but i am hoping to get it for christmas

i think it would be worth it to spend abit more and go with the 40d , but the xsi is still a great camera, watever u choose u will be completly happy with it.

There is no such thing as the best camera.
you gotta hold the cameras and figure out what works best for you.
I shoot nikon4lyfe strictly because i like the feel of it
and don't like canons because the lenses feel cheep and I don't like where the on switch is.

sooo to answer your question as i clearly didn't before.
by the D60 soully for the bad ass like on nikkor lenses

The Canon Rebel is a dope first camera its really easy but i prefer a nikon D80 myself they take more talent

would the nikon d60 be fine

Yeah they are all really nice

haha for sure, using a more expensive/efficient/in-camera-retouching SLR needs more talent...

what he said


and im getting tired of these threads, im making a be all end all of d-slr threads

yeah i agree brother allen.

i use an xti with the kit lens 18-55 and a handful of filters for the majority of my shots, and more importantly for the money, you can't beat it.