DSLR's - Need Help

[TraderJoe]

I can see there are a lot of pro-digital-cameramen on B&B. I've currently got a point&shoot waterproof camera [Pentax Optio w10] bought primarily for use while kayaking. It also works well out of the water (SOTD pics ), but I'd like to get a high end DSLR or similar camera. Keep in mind that I would consider myself a true novice when it comes to photography.

I have no idea where to start.

I'm soliciting recommendations on what to buy and what I'll need for a total kit to be able to take awesome outdoor photos, get creative with things, and of course: take my SOTD and other shave-related pics.

 

[Duggo]

Hi Joe,

I'm not a pro, or semi pro photographer...just so you know...but...

It might be helpful to know the following:

How much money would you like to spend? Once you know how much you want to spend, look at an a camera that is above your budget. You may not wind up buying it, but it will afford you the ability to make a comparison between the two models. This rule of thumb has come in very handy for me when I make my purchases.

What type of photography do you envision yourself using a DSLR for? For example, if you were on a farm, would you take pictures of the picket fence, the sunset, the animals, barn, flowers, or the people on the farm? Miscellaneous items perhaps?

Continuing with that same example, with a DSLR if you only bring one lens, that's your fault. What if it's not the right lens for the job? Murphy's law: The lens you need will be the one you left at home. Now, with a P/S camera not your fault because you only have one lens.

I've heard it said that first find out what lens system has the lenses you want to buy and go from there.

There are those who believe that lenses are everything. After all, that's what is taking the picture.

Do you want to be lugging around a tripod everywhere you go?

The great thing about DSLR's are their clearer viewfinders, and depending upon the lens, you can go all the way down to F22. (Which relates back to Depth of Field, (DOF) ) There are other things, but, that's another post.

If you go away with one thing go away with this: There is no one perfect camera. If there was, everybody would have one. So. go to
http://www.dpreview.com and register there, it's free. Ask questions. I only know that the Olympus forum is a friendly bunch. After you get a look at the cameras, make a list of the features that you must have and those you can do without. That should make the process of elimination easier.


Hope I was able to help you out. Feel free to PM me anytime if you have further questions.

 

[xChris]

If you have a 35mm SLR, then that might be something to consider when going to a DSLR. Many of the digital systems use the same mounts, so you could use some of the equipment that you already have on the new body.

 

[James707]

Joe
As stated above dpreview is one of the best sites out there, but his reviews are very professional, written for professionals. After looking at dpreview check out http://www.steves-digicams.com/ Steves site is very good and written for amatures like me.

For a DSLR imho you can't go wrong with the Olympus line. They were built from the ground up to be digital, and they have the best bang for your buck. You can score an E300 E330 or E500 with 2 lenses for around $800 at most retail stores. I started with the E300 and now have a 500 and love it.

 

[rtaylor61]

I've used Pentax 35mm SLR camera's since the late '70's. I have a few lenses for them. Would those work with the new DSLR cameras?

Randy

**EDIT** Never mind on this...I'll visit a couple of electronic stores and check them out for myself.

 

[crispy]

Start with the best! Pick up one of the Canon EOS Rebel XTi cameras. I have a few friends with these, they all love them, and I've taken a few pictures with them and the quality is awesome. The only complaint that I hear about them is that they seem to be like dust magnets, but fortunately, the camera seems to have some anti-dust features built into it.

 

[SA_bmatth]

DCReview.com as well. This page in particular.

 

[TraderJoe]

Hey guys, thanks for all the help so far! I've heard many good things about the Canon and Nikon, so I will definitely check into those.

To answer some of the questions,

1) I have never used DSLR, or SLR for that matter

2) Duggo, I'm not sure exactly what types of shots I'm going for, I want to be able to take really good pictures of scenery and objects as well, and I don't think i want to be carrying a tripod everywhere. Thank you, btw for that extended information. I greatly appreciate it.

3) All in, I was looking to spend < $2,000 but would pay more for quality or better or more lenses.

Thanks again for the help and I welcome other comments. I know I've got plenty of research to do.

 

[TraderJoe]

he only complaint that I hear about them is that they seem to be like dust magnets, but fortunately, the camera seems to have some anti-dust features built into it.

Funny you say that, I had a Canon camera that took Advantix film....about 5 or 6 years ago. It was a dust magnet!

 

[mlebarron]

Why are you going "high-end" if you say you're a novice? That would be my first question. If you're not a professional, you're not going to see a difference between something like the Canon xti/Nikon D50/80 and the high end Canon 30d/5d etc... It's a huge waste of money as by the time you get to the point where you're taking advantage of some of the high end stuff, you'll want to get a new camera anyay.

 

[mnealtx]

I can see there are a lot of pro-digital-cameramen on B&B. I've currently got a point&shoot waterproof camera [Pentax Optio w10] bought primarily for use while kayaking. It also works well out of the water (SOTD pics ), but I'd like to get a high end DSLR or similar camera. Keep in mind that I would consider myself a true novice when it comes to photography.

I have no idea where to start.

I'm soliciting recommendations on what to buy and what I'll need for a total kit to be able to take awesome outdoor photos, get creative with things, and of course: take my SOTD and other shave-related pics.

As an amateur photographer myself (landscape, sports and events), I'll second the Canon recommendation, but with a caveat-

Get the Rebel XT, similar to this kit from B&H Photo and Video - it's a fine camera to start out on, and the 17-85mm IS (image stabilized) lens is a great upgrade from the kit lens you would get, otherwise. It will let you go from moderate wide-angle (for landscape shots) to a light telephoto that's good for head and shoulders portrait shots of the family. Add a couple of 1Gb CF cards and a few extra batteries and you've got a great setup for general photography, until you get an idea of what you want to branch out into.

Good luck!

 

[Duggo]

Why are you going "high-end" if you say you're a novice? That would be my first question. If you're not a professional, you're not going to see a difference between something like the Canon xti/Nikon D50/80 and the high end Canon 30d/5d etc... It's a huge waste of money as by the time you get to the point where you're taking advantage of some of the high end stuff, you'll want to get a new camera anyay.

Excellent point. and good question.

I was in the same boat as you are now. The guy in the store said the Nikon came with the better lens and the battery lasts longer than on the Canon [at the time] XT.

I loved the D50, but if I recall correctly the mini lcd on the right hand side, (where the shutter button is located) is not back lit. So if your in less than optimal lighting conditions it's going to be hard to read the mini lcd.

Also, lets suppose you are taking a picture of a seascape, I believe that it would be preferred if your horizon was be level. Well, The Nikon D50 has no grid lines to aid you in your framing. There is also something called "The Rule of Thirds" The Nikon Grid lines can help you with that. Check out the internet for more information on "The Rule of Thirds" You will take better pictures. following the rule of thirds. The Nikon Grid lines are in quarters.

The D70 on the other hand, I loved. It has Grid lines, a mini-lcd, that is back lit. And Phil Askey at at Dpreview was impressed with the lenses.

Really important point: When you finally find the time to point your rodent to Dpreview, you are going to be bombarded with information overload.

One of which I'll bet you will be how many mega pixels each particular camera has. The more the better Right? Not on today's point and shoots. The chips today are so small the more MP's you pack on a chip that size the more noise you will get. Some people can't tell the difference, and are quite happy. And, that's one of the reasons people buy a DSLR. The size of the chip is much larger than what you'll find in any p&s or prosumer camera. So, the level of noise will be reduced as the photons have more room to spread out on the chip.

So, go to the gallery and look at some of the pictures (at dpreview.com) of some of the cameras you think you might be interested in, and have a look-see. It's no different than this place, in that you register with a head full of mush, and you leave with a much more discerning eye. Just don't say I didn't warn ya. Before you started with shaving soaps and creams, you thought foam in a can was hot stuff, right?

Just one more thought: I've heard that you do need to clean the camera in the inside because dust gets inside. I don't have an DSLR, so I can't comment to what extent this is an issue. Some people say it's way overblown, some people say the mech's in place to keep the lens clean (at start up) by Oly and Sony don't work. If I remember correctly, one guy had a DSLR, never changed the lens and dust got in. Knowing this, how apt are you going to be to change lenses to get the shot? Just another issue to think about when thinking about buying any DSLR.

Here's the thing, If I had one to bet, I'd bet you a Gillette Superspeed, Fatboy, that, you don't plan printing out your photos on a large format printer. i.e. 24" X 36". Most likely you're probably going to be printing out your pics 8.5" paper. Now the question becomes a question of I think DPI, if I recall correctly. I heard it said that 300 DPI is what you want to shoot for. That's optimal.

So, after you've taken your pictures, are you going to do post-processing? Cropping for one thing, which relates back mp's. It depends how much of the picture you're cropping and what the subject matter is. (see farm example) The more you crop out, the more you lower DPI. Can you really tell a difference? I don't know what the baseline is, below which you can't go...

To print out your photos, get Qimage It will do a much better job of printing out your photos than your driver that came with your printer will. And it will automatically choose the best size for your image. The members love it over at Dpreview.com

There is one more point to be made. Once you raise the bar, will you be able to settle for anything less? Now that I've played around with the d70, I can just hear myself: "Yeah but the other one had"


So sorry it's so long.

 

[TraderJoe]

It's a huge waste of money as by the time you get to the point where you're taking advantage of some of the high end stuff, you'll want to get a new camera anyay.

Pardon my ignorance, but could you please elaborate on this.

As an amateur photographer myself (landscape, sports and events), I'll second the Canon recommendation, but with a caveat-

Get the Rebel XT, similar to this kit from B&H Photo and Video - it's a fine camera to start out on, and the 17-85mm IS (image stabilized) lens is a great upgrade from the kit lens you would get, otherwise. It will let you go from moderate wide-angle (for landscape shots) to a light telephoto that's good for head and shoulders portrait shots of the family. Add a couple of 1Gb CF cards and a few extra batteries and you've got a great setup for general photography, until you get an idea of what you want to branch out into.

Good luck!

Thanks for the recommendation, that sure does look nice.

FWIW - my dad has some old (20+ yrs) Nikon f-mount lenses. would these work on modern day DSLRs?



Also,

Thanks Duggo - YGPM

 

[letterk]

Canon or Nikon. Can't really go wrong with either.

Best advice is to go and try a few in your price range. The best camera for you is the one that feels the best and has controls that are intuitive for you. Really. They all take fantastic photos. It really comes down to this unless you are a photo-geek that looks at test charts all day.

May want to take a good look at the lens line. If you really get into it, you'll spend way more money on glass than on the body in the long run.

As to your question about old Nikkor lenses, depends on the body that you get. They will all mechanically fit, but some bodies do not have the minimum aperture lever (meaning you won't be able to meter).

 

[mlebarron]

Pardon my ignorance, but could you please elaborate on this.

I'll use some of the canon's as an example.

I mentioned the Canon 30D and 5D... forget I said the 5D, it's $3300 and you said your budget was $2k. The 30D is $1300 though so it falls in your range (can get it cheaper online).

My understanding of some of the differences between the 30D and the Rebel Xti are spot metering(30D yes, Rebel no), some shutter speeds (I think the 30D has 1/8000 and the Rebel only goes to 1/4000), and some differences in burst speed mode (both have it though). The body is also different, which if that is the deciding factor, then so be it.

This isn't in any way meant to be condescending... but if you don't know what any of those are, then why get the 30D when you won't be using them? The Xti does have the new dust repelling stuff on the sensor (new coating and a vibration that occurs when you turn it on to shake off dust), which the 30D doesn't have. Whether you know a lot or not about camera's, less dust is always good

Same thing with lenses really... if you go out and spend a bunch of money on different lenses right away, you won't know what they're for, and then when you figure out how to use them, you might find out you either don't really want the lense, or you want a different one.

When you get to that level of camera, it's the photographer that makes the difference, not the camera. To draw an analogy... I can hit the track with a BMW 550 and hit a decent lap time, but at my skill level, jumping in a BMW M5 is really not going to make a difference, cause I won't know what to do with the extra power and better handling. It's a better car and it's capable of more, but I'm not able to do anything with the extra ability.

I don't know if all that makes sense, but I just really wouldn't want to see you spend lot's of money on something because of features you wouldn't use anyway.

 

[TraderJoe]

Thanks Michael, good thoughts. You raised a good point, and I appreciate what you have brought to light. Interesting analogy too, makes a lot of sense.

So I take it you are an expert photographer. What I have now is a P&S which has what I feel to be quite a few decent features. Assuming I stick with this for a while, how would you recommend I get "better"?

Also, along the same lines, would I better off sticking with a decent P&S and learning how to use photo-editing software such as Photoshop?

 

[mnealtx]

Thanks Michael, good thoughts. You raised a good point, and I appreciate what you have brought to light. Interesting analogy too, makes a lot of sense.

So I take it you are an expert photographer. What I have now is a P&S which has what I feel to be quite a few decent features. Assuming I stick with this for a while, how would you recommend I get "better"?

Also, along the same lines, would I better off sticking with a decent P&S and learning how to use photo-editing software such as Photoshop?

Howdy Joe -

Re: your earlier question about the F mounts - I'm not sure if they're compatible with the Nikon digitals or not. A quick search for a Nikon user forum should net you some answers, though.

Let me bring something up, though - there's nothing wrong with the camera you have, for what it is. If you're wanting to step up a level in your ability to control the photos you take, you may want to consider something similiar to the Canon S3 IS. It's still a point and shoot, but you have the capability of shooting in various manual modes, or in automatic. It won't be the same as using an SLR, but at least gets your foot in the door.

I definitely recommend getting some sort of image processing software. While the amount of editing you can do to a P&S photo is limited, there are SOME things that can be done without overly affecting picture quality.

 

[Edcculus]

I'm in the market for a Digital SLR too. I've been using a Nikon F2 Photomatic for years. It is getting to the point in my major (printing) that film will be obsolete in the next 5 years.

I'm leaning more heavily toward the Rebel. Mostly because I dont have a lot of money. . I noticed someone said the Rebel picks up a lot of dust. This is probably true of most cameras, especially if they are black. The Rebel has the "EOS" system which uses a high pass filter to knock dust off when it turns on.

Joe, I also have all of my old lectures and lab assignments from my photography class in PDF format. Give me a shout if you would like to see them.

 

[mlebarron]

Assuming I stick with this for a while, how would you recommend I get "better"?

I didn't mean to sound like you shouldn't get a DSLR I would recommend getting a mid range DSLR if you're really interested in learning. Canon Rebel XTi or 30D, Nikon D40/50/80 are all great choices, depending on your budget, personal choice, etc. Then you can have extra money to spend on other lenses, which will make a bigger difference than the body. Fisheye lenses are fun although limited in usefulness... I'm hesitant to make a specific recommendation as there are other factors as well. My baseline recommendation for anyone is to go to a local camera shop and hold and play around with them. You can love the specs on a camera, and then when you hold it you might hate it... so it doesn't matter what the specs are, if you don't enjoy and feel comfortable holding it, the process is ruined.

If you want to learn some of the manual stuff (aperture, shutter speed, etc) on a real budget you could stick with a high end point and shoot that offers as much manual control as possible (Canon's A series and G7 maybe). But it's honestly not nearly as fun or as interesting as doing it with an SLR. Although you might lose things like RAW mode, and you'll be at the mercy of only having the one lense.

After awhile it will be a natural progression of learning new stuff and then realizing not only that you want a specific feature or camera, but you'll know specifically why you want it.

Also, along the same lines, would I better off sticking with a decent P&S and learning how to use photo-editing software such as Photoshop?

Always good to learn, but no, cause that won't teach you anything about camera's or photography, which is what it sounds like you're interested in.

I The Rebel has the "EOS" system which uses a high pass filter to knock dust off when it turns on.

EOS is actually "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]electro-optical system" although no one ever actually calls it that, kind of like "SLR" ([/SIZE][/FONT]Standard Lens Reflex)[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] actually... we all know what type of camera it refers to.

The cleaning system is only on the XTi right now. They make it confusing by calling it the "[/SIZE][/FONT]EOS Integrated Cleaning System" which you're right, makes it sound like it's on all the EOS camera's... when it's not. Gotta love marketing.

 

[moses]

I'm old school. And no expert. But here is my take.

If you want to take fun pictures, a point and shoot is fine.

If you want to be able to learn more, take more fun pictures, have a little better quality, etc. a decent DSLR like the Canon Rebel would be great. Lenses are nice for flexibility. Better zoom capabilities (with less optical costs than P&S). More manual options. Etc. Less portable than P&S.

Professional cameras are for professionals, or very serious amatuers. A lot of the difference is often durability to be used hard all day every day. But there are other capabilities. It is a waste of money, though, until you know the difference, and know you need it.

Finally, if you REALLY want to learn photography, as an art, not just taking snapshots. Get the DSLR, it will be useful. But also buy a Canon. An old Canon. NOT A DIGITAL. Not even autofocus. Old and basic. There are a lot of options (and honestly lots of brands other than Canon, but that and Nikon are reliable choices). I would suggest an AE-1. Built kinda like a tank. You can get one on EBAY for a decent price. If you get an old one, it may need to be reconditioned (taken apart, cleaned, new seals, etc.). This should cost about $100. Tons of lenses out there, and all fairly inexpensive. I paid $135 for my all purpose lense, but it was only that much because it is one of the better manual focus zoom lenses Canon made, and very close to mint condition.

Seriously. The real learning tool is an old film SLR. You will learn about lighting, exposure times, apertures, etc, because you will have to. Not only that, it will make you THINK about each shot as you take it, because you can't just erase it if it isn't good. Ideally, you should record the stats for each shot in a little mini notebook you keep with your camera, and refer to it when you get your prints - that way, you learn what did and did not work.

-Mo