I am thinking about possibly getting a digital SLR camera. Mainly for hobby/fun reasons. I am curious what everyones opinions are on the current (or soon to be available) DSLRs on the market. best bang for the buck? quality? ect...
If just for fun. Dont get anything too fancy. After like 5mp there is no difference between quality of picture if you are not blowing it up to a size of an advertisement poster. get a good camera and couple lenses. Canon and Nikon are the way to go.
I've got a nikon d50, their first consumer dslr, and just recently bought the 18-200mm VR (vibration reduction) lens. It's awesome. The lens actually cost more than the camera. But for low cost, the d40 is a great place to start. Otherwise, canon and nikon are equally kickass. That's the direction I'd go.
for entry level nikon D40 or D40x, for entry level canon 350D (xt) or 400D (xti) prosumer canon 30D or 40D, nikon d80, d200, d300 (getting more expensive) keep in mind that glass is just as important as the body so budget accordingly (most people make do on the kit lens for a while but sooner or later you'll want more glass so consider that ie lens prices, selection when shopping)
I use the Canon XTi as my carry on and the Canon 5D as my studio Cam. When I'm out shooting weddings or doing projects, I take the 5D and the XTi becomes my backup. As others has stated before... the Lens will come later if you're a beginner... but do save up cause Lens will cost you more then the body in the long run.
I just got a Canon Rebel XTi (EOS 400) and it's a great camera. Vic is right about the lens and you won't have to worry about getting more than one till later. All you'll need is the usual 18-55mm lens and a tripod if you're just starting out.
Good advice so far, IMO. The reason the lens is important is this: the camera body controls the light and captures the image. The lens transfers the image to the body. The quality of the lens directly effects the quality of the captured image. This means you can have an $8,000 body with a crappy lens and you will get crappy images. Maybe info overkill, but the general idea. I would say you should consider what you want to use the camera for and come up with your requirements from there: size, inside/outside & light situations, weather conditions, will you need a flash often, people, landscapes, action - what do you want the camera to be able to do? I think one of the members here works at a camera shop (NCE?)- check the thread in Member For Sale: MnSubaru Hookups. I have a Canon 20D and several lenses carried over from my film camera before that. Primarily I use a 17-40 or a 28-70. Some people like the 28-135 IS (Image Stabilizer) for their primary lens.
Thanks for the info so far. How good are the lenses that come with the cameras starting packages? would I be better of just buying the camera body and then getting an a different lens right from the start? My main uses are: outdoor, people, landscapes, cars, macro. I hate using flash, I would much rather use long exposure (more fun). Size isnt really an issue, I have a canon SD630 which comes with me everywhere. the SLR would just be for fun (ie go out specifically to take pics ect...)
if you like long exposures, go cannon, get the rebel xti. go ahead and get the POS kit lens. save up for something decent. i work at the ridgedale ritz camera now. seeing as how i don't own ritz i can't give any deals on cameras anymore, but your definitely welcome to come in and i'll show you a few diffrent cameras. -aaron
Probably best to get a kit unless you know specifically what you want for a lens right away or are going to buy a lens really soon. Weigh what subject matter you will shoot most (at least at the start) in picking the lens if you don't buy a kit. Do you need it to be fast, do macro, wide angle, shallow depth of field, etc. This site might have some info: http://dpreview.com/
as most on here are saying to go with nikon d.. the d80 is a very pupluar slr. my opinion is to go check out them in person. eveyone has differnt views on each camera. if ur looking for just a hobbie slr and dont wnat to get into adding crazy lens to it. i know canon is having a good deal with the rebel xti. with 18-70 and 75-300 lens pack. the d40 alos has a killer kit going on to. i perfur to use pentax ive been using them for years and the k10 is a great cam. u cnat go wrong with nikon eather.
Thanks for the input. I think the hardest decision I have to make is between nikon or canon. I know they are both solid camera makers and I will probably be happy either way. I am assuming the lens selection between the two is near identical, since they are both well developed brands. Are there any huge differences between say a rebel XTi and a D40? How about between a D40 and D80?
u should look at the d40x theres not much defference between the d80 and that. and ull save some cash cause theres good packeges out there
canon has maybe a slight edge when it comes to lenses (nikon has a definate edge when it comes to flash).
I got a D70, D40 is limiting on lens choice for the future due to the lack of an AF screw to drive non self autofocusing lenses.
Check out KEH.com. I picked up my 70-200 afs lens for about 450 less then any local place was selling them. Said it was slightly used. Once I got the lens, it was brand new, had everything but the original box. IIRC when I was on there last time, d70s are going for around $460 or so (body only), then it would just be a matter of picking up a lens. Russ
I'd somewhat dissagree with that statement, nikon's specialty and strength is in optics before it's in photography. They specialize in high end metrology equipment, like the microscopes they use to measure circuit boards and computer chips, etc. Their kit lenses are actually pretty good optically. Their build quality is cheap plastic, but they take excellent pictures. Everything I've ready about the kit lenses that come with canons is that you want to replace them as soon as you can. That's another thing to think about. I think that nikon offers one of the best lenses for a hobbiest. The 18-200mm VR is a do everything lense. Instead of carrying 2 or 3 lenses with you everywhere, this thing can do just about everything. If you owned a macro lense, a wide angle zoom, and the 18-200mm, you would have like 99.9% of all possible shots available at your finger tips. The only thing is that there is some vignetting at the high end, and some lense distortion at low end of the zoom, but it's nothing more than you would expect from shooting with a wide lense anyway. I'd say the biggest advantage that canon has is it's sensors. I believe canon designs and builds it's own sensors, where as nikon contracts that out. Plus canon has more options for full frame bodies. Nikon finally has one out, but it's their most expensive body, the uber pro d3x, vs canon has it available at the prosumer level. If you like shooting wide, the dx sized sensor is going to be a limiting factor. 28mm is considered a wide lense on full frame, but you would need ~18mm on a dx sensor to achieve the same due to the crop factor. Either way, I would research the lenses that you want to shoot with and keep that in mind when making your decision. Bodies are relative disposable commodities in comparison to lenses. You should buy the body that matches the lenses you want to shoot with. I think this is kind of a moot point at the hobbiest level (or even in general) because, unless you're trolling around on ebay to get a good deal on a 15 year old lense, the cheap plastic lenses nikon makes for their low end kits usually outperform a lot of the older lenses in the optical department and even if they don't, there's probably a more modern lense that will anyway. But nevermind all that, just go to the camera store and hold either brand in your hand. Which ever feels better, buy that one. That's really what it all comes down to. Both nikon & canon make such great products, it really only comes down to really subjective stuff like which one fits your hand best.
Just my opinion, but: Go to National Camera & Video. Despite the name they are a Cities only, family owned chain of stores. The sales people will/should listen to what you want to do and put cameras in your hands to let you work it out. It is worthwhile to them to get you the right camera as you will have 30 days to come back and say, "This isn't working for me." They teach photo classes and you get tickets for one or two classes with a camera purchase. This is based on how things were when I worked at the Roseville NCE 5 1/2 years ago before moving out of the Cities. My .02. GL!
I'm a Canon guy myself but you really cannot go wrong with either. I shoot with a Canon 30d with BG-E2 Battery Grip and the following lenses: Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon 17-40 f/4L USM Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM You need to remember you're going to want UV filters (protect the front element of your lenses), circular polarizing filters (a necessity for outdoor shooting), a good bag (I use a Dakine Sequence), cleaning supplies, and memory cards as well.
I need to find some time to go and try out some cameras. How do these cameras stack up durability wise? same goes for the lenses are canon lenses more durable than nikons in general? Another question: are filters universal fit or are they body/lens specific like lenses are?
filters depend on the lens - lens have various diameters and when I was saying canon has a slight advantage in glass, I mean by price - if you look at pricing, equivalent canon glass usually costs slightly less
My lenses all take the same size filter except for one I am borrowing from family. This is very handy for the Polariser which is not cheap. My experience is with Canon so I cannot speak to Nikon other than they are a good company with good products. As I recall Nikon got VR technology from Canon who had been rocking Nikon with IS for a while. But Nikon has had plenty of time to make it their own. Canon's high end lenses have weather sealing in them as do their high end bodies. The EOS 1D series are magnesium bodies; but uber-pricey as well. I don't know what level equipment this starts to get integrated at tho. I imagine Nikon has similar features. Both companies make quality optics. They will have slightly different flavour to them. dpreview.com is a good place to start looking at things like that.
so the new canon 40D has caught my eye. My uncle recommended this camera to me, he REALLY knows his stuff about cameras. anyway has anyone had any experience with this camera? I looked at the review on DPreview.com and saw pretty much what i was expecting to see. just interested to see what some users opinions are. also think there will be a price drop after Christmas, or are cameras pretty price fixed?
I have a D40 (had a D50 that I should have kept) and Like it. I am not very good with it but it takes good pictures. I also have a Canon SD630 for point and shoot. Anyway - What I learned while researching DSLR's boiled down to: 1. The lenses are a bigger investment that the camera body. You will keep the lenses and change the body. 2. Nikon/Nikkor - better lenses 3. Canon - Better bodies What I know now: #1 is definately true. If you are ooking to do some motorsports/action shots you need a pretty fast lens = 800 and up #2 I think this is true for the really high end lenses, maybe less so for the mid-low market #3 a friend of mine has a Rebel Xti and she swears by it - and hates my nikons. I think it has a better cmos than the nikon's at the basic level. It *is* a little easier to use the couple of times that I have blagged it from her. This guy has a ton of good information: http://www.kenrockwell.com/ Of course keep in mind I am a complete hack photographer....
get it, you will love it. it's basically a hopped up 30D (my primary body) but the new additions are certainly nice.
40d is awesome. you'd love it. last i checked the ritz warehouse has them in stock. canon L series lenses will rock your socks off. i promise.
^ whats the going price on this beast? hmmm... looks like there are 2 kits out there. one with the standard 28-135mm IS, and a new one with a 18-55mm IS. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/18-55mm-is.htm EDIT: never mind i guess the 18-55mm IS kit is only offered over seas. but this lens is supposed to be relatively cheap (<$200) EDIT: there is also a 17-85mm IS lens pack. all three of these kits can be gotten in the US. hmmm...
too bad L glass holds its value extremely well lol. used L glass at nat cam is usually the same price as new on b&h. west's prices seem a bit better though - I need to get over there to buy some more sensor swabs
i had the 28-135mm - on a 1.6 crop camera the 28mm is not wide enough. the lens is ok overall but I would avoid it. the 17-85 is pretty average from what i read (i would actually avoid it too). the 18-55 is what I would pick out of those 3. or the 17-55 f2.8IS if you can afford it
I do not have any experience with the 18-55 or the 17-85 and only limited experience with the 28-135IS. It was a nice lens and I almost got it with my film camera 7 or 8 years ago but finally decided on the 24-85 as I felt the extra 4mm on the wide angle was worth it to me. My best friend used it as his primary lens until he bought the 17-40L this fall. I think it also could do some minor macro shooting, but I could be wrong about that. If I were you I would go to one of the shops that has the lenses and check 'em out on the 40D (or whatever body you are leaning towards, if it changes). Check how much field of view you get on both sides of the zoom range and how steady you can hold it both with and without the IS turned on. That will give you a sense of where you'll be working at. Also consider how long the autofocus takes under different lighting situations. Sometimes cheaper lenses focus much slower or not as well under low light; however, all autofocus requires some contrast to get it's focus so don't just point it at a blank wall in the dark closet behind the counter. It is also worth considering the speed of the lenses you are considering: the maximum aperture (smallest number = largest opening) at the varying focal lengths. This can effect the focusing speed but more importantly how much you will be able to control what amount of the photo is in focus (depth of field). Sorry if I am spewing stuff you already know. And for the length of the post. I shoot a 20D with a vertical grip (extended battery life is nice) w/ 17-40 4.0 L primarily. In the bag is a 28-70 2.8 L (old school now - not 24mm, or weather-sealed), 70-200 2.8 IS, and 50 1.4 (borrowed, not used much at all, but really nice when needed!) p.s. - L lenses have a full time manual focus over-ride so you can manually tweak the focus w/o having to turn the autofocus off. Very handy it it fits your style.
Most people seem to hate this guy. I actually learned quite a bit from his site when I first got into photography, but read his site with a HUGE grain of salt. He's very biased and opinionated about his take on things, but he also has never tried to say he was objective either. I think it's a pretty decent place for a complete n00b to start, but always cross reference another site like dpreview.com before buying into his schpeal. Also, check out www.luminous-landscape.com for some more advanced tips. Its focus is more towards landscape photography, but the advice is pretty universal.
the 18-55 is is ok, you will eventually replace it with the 17-40 f4l the 17-85 is a nice all around lens. nothing in an l series really replaces it. the 28-135 is horribly flat, i had this lens and sold it... and it is not wide enough for an everyday lens. get the 24-105 f4lIS instead.
hmm... how much do these 17-40 F4 L and 17-55 F2.8 IS go for? is there a noticeable gap in optical quality between these and a kit lens (stupid question probably). would a better route be to get the body and a decent prime (55mm F1.4 USM) and save up for a fancier zoom with IS?
the 17-40L is not very expensive. a bit over $500. the 17-55 f2.8 isn't L glass but it carries L glass price at close to $1000. yes, both of these lenses will perform much better than a kit lens. starting on a kit lens or cheaper lens isn't so bad though. the optical quality will be decent and it will teach you a lot so you will know what you want in your next lens
that 17-55mm F2.8 looks awesome. might be awhile before i can justify 900 for a lens, due to the purchasing of the body. this does look like a must have.
the 40D is way better than the xti - if he's already considering the 40D I wouldn't spend too much time looking at the xti (it's still a nice camera though)
