| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/03/2008 10:27:06 PM · #1 |
Hello everyone.
I hope nobody minds me posting some questions on SLR cameras. I have read through a lot of threads on this board and I can tell from the conversations, there is a lot of advanced users here. Sort of intimidating. :)
Long story short, I am going to be buying my first SLR for myself this month. I really just had a couple of questions that I am not real sure about. But here goes.
My original thinking was to buy a 'beginner' SLR. Something I could teach myself with stuff like aperture, adjusting camera settings etc. Photography is very rich and has lot of moving parts in it. As much as I want to get the best camera available, I think it would be wise for me to start with something I can learn with?
Anyway, I've read a lot about the Nikon D40 camera. Even though its only 6mp (and MP should not judge the camera), looks like a very good camera to get me started with. However, I am always open to suggestions.
Two things I think about a lot in my decision:
1.) Adding additional lenses. I am lost here and not sure what to look for when I start buying more lenses. I need to make sure the camera supports the lens. Can someone point out a few suggestions on things to consider/look for?
2.) Size of the camera. I have big hands. I went to the camera store the other day and held a Nikon D40 and a Nikon D80. The D80 seemed to fit better in my hands. Felt more stable for me. The D40 definitely felt smaller in my hands.
Should this be cause for concern? The D80 is more money and the other thing I heard is the sensor is better in the D40 than the D80 (//www.kenrockwell.com - good write ups)
So, this is the other thing I am weighing on.
I appreciate all the help and feedback here.
I look forward to posting my work as soon as I buy a camera.
Much obliged.
Jason |
|
|
|
08/03/2008 10:41:21 PM · #2 |
Jason, there about as many different opinions as there are people.
I just bought my first digital SLR two weeks ago. (I went with the Canon 40D)
My thought on buyin is buy something you can grow into, in a reasonable amount of time. If you buy short, you wind up being limited by the camera before you are ready to buy a new one. Buy way beyond your needs and you may never utilize all of it, and as cameras are continually improving wind up trading it for another before you reach its limits.
What is a reasonable amount of time? How long do you realistically plan to keep the camera? 3 years, 5, 10? I bought my last camera 6 years ago, before affordable DSLRs exisited.
As for lenses, the kit lens, is usually a decent starter. It covers most of what you will likely be doing to start. It also has the advantage of being cheaper because so many are made and sold. Once you know where you want to go, and what you want to get into, then you can start investing in the expensive glass.
You are correct, more pixels do not mean better pictures. Sensor size is important, as is sensor construction.
Buy a camera that fits your hands. It should feel natural, not too light, not flimsy, not heavy, not unbalanced, nor bulky. When you are going for a shot, the way the camera feels should not be a distraction.
I have big hands, which is another reason I chose what I did.
-alex
|
|
|
|
08/03/2008 10:45:38 PM · #3 |
Why don't you first get yourself an "SLR-like" camera, such as the Canon S5 IS, which will let you try out all kinds of photography (except extreme wide-angle) with complete manual control, for less than the cost of a decent lens.
Then, once you know what you want to concentrate on and how you use your equipment, you can make an more rational choice as to what types and style of equipment you need. I think you need different equipment depending on whether you want to focus on (pun intended)
-Landscape
-Wildlife
-Portraiture
-Architecture
-Sports
-Macrophotography
-Astrophotography |
|
|
|
08/03/2008 10:55:02 PM · #4 |
Nikon for the win!
It is true there are a lot of options. Going with an SLR-like will be cheaper and easier however will obviously not have upgradeable lenses later on.
If going with an SLR you need to decide which way you are going to go for lenses, Nikon or Canon, since most third party SLRs take one or the other, or compatible third party lenses with Sigma lenses.
I have my personal bias, was a Canon boy, went over to the dark side and chose Nikon. I sleep with my camera now. Let that encourage or discourage you. hehehe
Just don't let the Canon boys bully you, they out number Nikon users 5 to 1 and have louder mouths, I should know having been one of them. ;)
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
08/03/2008 11:12:47 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why don't you first get yourself an "SLR-like" camera, such as the Canon S5 IS, which will let you try out all kinds of photography (except extreme wide-angle) with complete manual control, for less than the cost of a decent lens. |
I would have been overwhelmed by the SLR if I had bought it first. Also, the advanced compacts like the S5 have a lot of features that you will not get in an SLR without additional 壉‚¬n$€$. I bought an SLR in February, but I still prefer the S5 for macro shots. The downside relative to an SLR is low light performance, but you can learn how to work within and around that.
Message edited by author 2008-08-03 23:14:20. |
|
|
|
08/03/2008 11:13:05 PM · #6 |
Don't forget that these all have an optional grip (extra battery & some extra buttons), so you might want to see how the cameras feel with those attached - your might prefer a smaller body with the grip - I never take the grip off mine and it makes it far more usable (along with a hand strap!!! which is the best bang for the buck accessory you can buy). That said, I played with my brothers D80 and it's a nice body and I think it's got a lot more future options with the flash system & other things - sorry, don't know Nikon feature too well but I believe the D40 cannot drive CLS fully.
That said, the bodies will come & go cause we are still in a fast change cycle with digi bodies.... mayke sure you pick a system with lenses/flashes/whatever you prefer and ignore the switching discussions :-). |
|
|
|
08/03/2008 11:33:32 PM · #7 |
Thanks for the help everyone. I really do appreciate it.
Alex, I never thought about buying a camera and growing into it. Makes a lot of sense though. I actually like this method better. Buy it. Grow into it. Should last me quite a few years. :)
I will check out the Canon 40D. Just out of curiosity, whats the Nikon equivalent?
Im going to head to my local shop again tomorrow, to hold a few more of these cameras. I am really itching to buy my camera now. :)
Cheers,
Jason |
|
|
|
08/04/2008 12:10:02 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Jason, there about as many different opinions as there are people.
I just bought my first digital SLR two weeks ago. (I went with the Canon 40D)
My thought on buyin is buy something you can grow into, in a reasonable amount of time. If you buy short, you wind up being limited by the camera before you are ready to buy a new one. Buy way beyond your needs and you may never utilize all of it, and as cameras are continually improving wind up trading it for another before you reach its limits.
What is a reasonable amount of time? How long do you realistically plan to keep the camera? 3 years, 5, 10? I bought my last camera 6 years ago, before affordable DSLRs exisited.
As for lenses, the kit lens, is usually a decent starter. It covers most of what you will likely be doing to start. It also has the advantage of being cheaper because so many are made and sold. Once you know where you want to go, and what you want to get into, then you can start investing in the expensive glass.
You are correct, more pixels do not mean better pictures. Sensor size is important, as is sensor construction.
Buy a camera that fits your hands. It should feel natural, not too light, not flimsy, not heavy, not unbalanced, nor bulky. When you are going for a shot, the way the camera feels should not be a distraction.
I have big hands, which is another reason I chose what I did.
-alex |
Hey Alex,
Meant to ask. What type of lens did you end up getting with that 40D?
Thanks,
Jason |
|
|
|
08/04/2008 01:13:31 AM · #9 |
The idea of growing into a camera is appealing. However, that said, there are a few problems.
1. The more advanced cameras don't have as many automatic modes. My Nikon D50 (replaced with the D40) could run fully auto. This was great at first since if I was unsure, I could always fall back to knowing I would get the shot. My D200 doesn't have this.
2. DSLR cameras have a lot of settings. Good if you know what they are -- bad if you mess one up and can't figure out how or even what needs to be fixed.
3. A D40 will take great pictures. So will a Canon 40D (not really sure what the Nikon equivalent is. It seems right in between the D80 and D300 in the Nikon lineup -- but leaning more toward the D300).
I would vote for the SLR Like camera such as the Canon S5-IS. You get image stabilization, ease of use as well as the ability to go fully manual if you want. Plus, you'll get a good feel for what you actually want in a camera.
Oh ya. I have large hands too and couldn't deal with the Canon bodies. The D200 just fit and it was a steal with the D300 coming out. Now I'm lusting after the D700. Once you get a DSLR, the upgrading never ends!
|
|
|
|
08/04/2008 01:30:04 AM · #10 |
My advice... get the cheapest body that feels really good in your hands. One that you like where all the buttons are and the menus are easy for you to understand. Then spend the big bucks on a REALLY GOOD lens. A 2.8 zoom 17-55 or 24-70.
You will never regret getting good glass and the lens should outlast many bodies.
I so wish I got a better lens when I picked up my first body.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2008 01:52:36 AM · #11 |
My vote is an XTI. When I rented the 40d I was not very impressed. The settings were a nightmare to change.
It went like this....
"Let's see press this button roll this wheel.... wait damn... roll the other wheel. there okay! Wait were my model go?" It's a great camera but it's learning curve is a lot higher.
1. it is way easier to learn on.
2. just dropped in price do to the XSI coming out it's like 550 now
3. 10mp
4. You can use the saved money to get better lenses might I add the 50mm 1.4 takes some awesome photos!
Of course I may be biased since I own one but I'm very happy with it. I do like the new Nikon d300 though If canon made something like it in it's price range I'd jump on it. 5d mk II PLEASE!!!
|
|
|
|
08/04/2008 02:29:23 AM · #12 |
I wouldn't go for the SLR like cameras to be honest. The price difference between a full blown SLR and the SLR like point and shoots is small.
Whatever brand you go with make sure it feels alright in your hands and the controls feel like they are where they should be. Renting the camera first would be the way I would go. If it doesn't feel right you aren't going to enjoy shooting with it.
I would look at the high end of whatever brand you are thinking of going with. You might not be able to afford several thousand dollars for a camera but a lot of those features in the high end gear will trickle down to the consumer level in a couple of years. Perhaps just as you are ready to upgrade.
The nice thing about a full fledged SLR is that whatever money you put towards lenses, flashes, filter etc won't be wasted when you do decide to get a new body. The only time that is not true is when you switch brands.
//dpreview.com is a great resource for comparing. When it comes down to it, each brand has its strengths and weaknesses. It all depends on what you are interested in shooting.
In the end though? If you buy any sort of SLR you aren't going to regret it. (Unless you start putting a fortune into lenses in which case your significant other might make you regret it)
|
|
|
|
08/04/2008 02:36:03 AM · #13 |
"The downside relative to an SLR is low light performance, but you can learn how to work within and around that. "
are you joking me? SLR's have much more performance in low light than any prosumer camera. my Canon 40D can shoot all day at ISO 800 without too much noise, while my old Sony F828 couldn't go past 200 without ruining the image. Not to mention AF ability and lens capability. Ever shot with the Canon 50MM F1.0? I have, and nothing is as fast, and nothing ever will be as fast than that lens on an SLR.
I would seriously suggest going for the DSLR as your first camera. Start with a Budget, Nikon D40 or Canon XSI or 40D. Having a DSLR is a MUCH more fun way and is a more invlovling way to learn photography. A good prime, like a 50MM f1.8 is a great way to get you started with a nice lens at a low price, that will help you learn more quickly than if you were to stick with the kit lens.
personally, I love the button layout of the Canon 40D. I have shot all the major Canon cameras, starting with the 30D a number of years ago, on up to the 1D MKIII. I used to have a rebel XT. After using all the cameras, I can say that the rebel series is easier to jump on and switch settings, IF you are not aquainted with the camera. if you know how to use your camera, the 40D and upwards cameras have MUCH more efficient controls. What works best for you personally should be found at your camera shop when you hold the camera in your hands.
The Canon XSI would make a great starter camera, paired with a 50MM F1.8 prime lens. my frist DSLR was a nikon D70 with a 50mm. I learned a huge deal from using a simple prime with a big apeture (compared to the kit lens) I switched to Canon, but it is more a matter of personal choice between the two companies.
Good luck!!! spend lots of money !
Message edited by author 2008-08-04 02:39:00. |
|
|
|
08/04/2008 08:52:38 AM · #14 |
|
|
|
08/04/2008 09:10:24 AM · #15 |
Remember if you get the D40 you'll have to be using AFS lenses or you won't have autofocus. So far none of the wonderful 50mm lenses recommended above come in AFS. Rumor has it that a nano coated 50mm F1.4 is in the works. But it'll cost more than your camera. Just remember while you are deciding on cameras, pick wisely. When you buy lenses this will lock you into one brand or another. If you have any friends locally maybe it would be nice to have the same brand so you could share on shoots.
As for being a small camera, if it's light enough not to bother you in a fanny pack or shoulder sling, or just walking around with the wrist strap, it'll get used more than the big gun huge heavy cameras. You should go to a nearby camera shop and handle all the ones you think you might like. The only reason I went Nikon was the position of the controls. The first one I picked up, (F4) the controls just seemed to fall right under my fingers. Good luck. |
|
|
|
08/04/2008 05:04:09 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Remember if you get the D40 you'll have to be using AFS lenses or you won't have autofocus. So far none of the wonderful 50mm lenses recommended above come in AFS. Rumor has it that a nano coated 50mm F1.4 is in the works. But it'll cost more than your camera. Just remember while you are deciding on cameras, pick wisely. When you buy lenses this will lock you into one brand or another. If you have any friends locally maybe it would be nice to have the same brand so you could share on shoots.
As for being a small camera, if it's light enough not to bother you in a fanny pack or shoulder sling, or just walking around with the wrist strap, it'll get used more than the big gun huge heavy cameras. You should go to a nearby camera shop and handle all the ones you think you might like. The only reason I went Nikon was the position of the controls. The first one I picked up, (F4) the controls just seemed to fall right under my fingers. Good luck. |
I agree with what you are saying. I think this is one major reason I am being so cautious and thorough. I need to be smart about my choice. The adding on additional lenses is what makes me do more research.
Boy, I keep going back and forth. :)
Cheers,
Jason |
|
|
|
08/04/2008 05:24:53 PM · #17 |
The d80 should keep you happy for 5 years.
I was given the d70 as a gift and that (along with DPC) inspired the addiction I have today.
I have upgraded lenses many times. The resale on a lens is better than a camera.
In 5 years you can learn learn learn and accumulate some more lenses. Then upgrade bodies. |
|
|
|
08/04/2008 06:30:06 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
I wouldn't go for the SLR like cameras to be honest. The price difference between a full blown SLR and the SLR like point and shoots is small. |
Not when you add in the cost of lenses ... how much is an SLR with a range of 36-412mm, and macro capability/minimum focus distance of 0mm?
Also, with a fixed lens, you don't need sensor cleaning (kits or service) ...
Message edited by author 2008-08-04 18:30:18. |
|
|
|
08/04/2008 06:40:22 PM · #19 |
one nice thing about the nikon line vs the canon line is that nikon will allow you to use older versions of their lenses. when canon switched from FD mount to EF mount they didn't make the mount backward compatible.
there are down sides to some of the functionality of the lenses on a digital body or newer camera, but they still work.
i also think - but am not positive - that some of the new nikon lenses/accessories actually don't work on some of their consumer grade dSLR's. so that might be something to look into.
Message edited by author 2008-08-04 18:43:01.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2008 07:13:30 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by soup:
one nice thing about the nikon line vs the canon line is that nikon will allow you to use older versions of their lenses. when canon switched from FD mount to EF mount they didn't make the mount backward compatible. |
I believe this is mostly true. However, as far as the D40 is concerned I think the compatability is much more limited than on some of Nikons higher end bodies (including the D80).
I don't think Canon dumping the FD mount and switching to the EF mount is an issue any longer, unless you're stuck with a bunch of FD lenses. The canon EF mount lenses have been around long enough that the market for used lenses is huge.
One thing that I do find frustrating about most of the camera companies is the lack of accessory compatablity across the line. Too many accessories, such as cable releases and remotes etc..., work on one specific camera, so if you upgrade within the same brand, you are looking at having to replace accessories.
I under bought for my purposes when I got the K100D. Don't get me wrong I love my camera, but I should've bought a K10. And this was my fault, I know the kinds of things I want to shoot and where I want to take my photography. So one of these days there's likely going to be a K20D under my name- unless I do something truely radical and jump systems (which is probably a slim chance at this point, although if I win the lottery I might just buy a couple from each company).
Message edited by author 2008-08-04 19:21:18.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 01:12:54 PM · #21 |
Also interested in these (possible) first time DSLRs. My own reason for an upgrade is as much for the sensor size as for the old film slr viewfinder experience, and, down the road, for an expensive telephoto for wildlife. However I am not looking forward to the lens changing/dust/greater set of photo options: my high end but dated FZ10 provides all the options and more than I had on my film dslr and I am STILL learning on it. The 4 mp is not so much the limitation as noise in low light, and at greater pixel density is ultimately superior to the 5 mps in my other 2 cameras.
Just saying that  yospiff has a point if you are primarily interested in learning photography first. When/ever I do upgrade I will still be happy to reach for my current camera. I am constantly amazed at what these machines can do. Oh, and the Leica lens is rather nice. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 01:42:00 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by soup:
one nice thing about the nikon line vs the canon line is that nikon will allow you to use older versions of their lenses. when canon switched from FD mount to EF mount they didn't make the mount backward compatible.
there are down sides to some of the functionality of the lenses on a digital body or newer camera, but they still work.
i also think - but am not positive - that some of the new nikon lenses/accessories actually don't work on some of their consumer grade dSLR's. so that might be something to look into. |
I don't know if it's still the case, but, while you cannot directly mount FD lenses on an EF mount camera, when I was looking at Canon vs. Nikon, I found out that you could mount older AI Nikkor lenses on Nikon DSLR's but the meter would not work. I also discovered that there is an AI to EF adapter that will allow the use of such Nikkor lenses on Canon DSLR's and the meter will still work.
There are adapters that will allow FD lenses to be mounted to EF cameras, but you either have to live without infinity focus or get an adapter with corrective lenses in which case you have to live with the effects of that extra glass. |
|
