Help me with a Digital SLR

I bought a Canon Powershot SD1400IS a year or show ago. I love it. I love photography more and more every time i take it out and use it.

And so...

Can you give me your advice on Digital SLRs?

I wanna do general photography nothing super super up close and maybe some farther away stuff (think auto X). As i understand its a matter of lenses so thats ok. Ill start with just a basic rig and go from there.

I was recommended a Canon Rebel XTi and it looks pretty good to me from what i have read.

Your input? My budget is low. I have seen the Rebel XTi used go for 250$ with a lense so in that neighborhood.

Thanks

I've not gone to a DSLR yet (FWIW, I use a Canon G12 as my standard digital, along with a variety of film rangefinders and a Pentax SFX film SLR) , but I can give you some general advice.

Buying any SLR means buying into a lens system. Most of the manufacturers switched their lens mounting systems when they transitioned from film to digital; Pentax is the notable exception. If you don't need autofocus and some autometering capabilities, buying a Pentax DSLR body and older K-mount lenses can save you money in the long run.

If you want to shoot auto-x, you need to shoot at relatively fast shutter speeds, which means a combination of larger apertures and higher ISO. Older DSLR performance at higher ISO may fall off considerably, so you'll want to get as fast a lens as possible.

I know you want a DSLR, but there's a lot to be said for the advanced point-and-shoot options out there. You can get a lot more zoom and speed for the money if you go P&S, but you need to buy carefully. One thing you'll definitely want is an optical viewfinder if you intend to shoot moving targets. A good P&S in manual mode, set using manual focus to hyperfocal length, can do most of what a DSLR can with moving targets.

I've got a Canon Digital Rebel. Not an XT or XTi, the original. By current standards, it's woefully underpowered. I think it shoots fewer pixels than an iPhone - but since each of those pixels came through good glass, the images are a lot better than the numbers would suggest.

It does the job nicely. I've shot a few book covers with it and a lot of motorsports. Since autocrosses tend to be shot in daylight, you don't really have a problem with ISO numbers. If you're trying to shoot a 24 hour race, that's a totally different story. Also, the mounting system for Canon didn't change - I know my digital can use film lenses that predate my camera.

Shooting motorsports with a point-and-shoot is a lot less satisfying. The speed of an SLR makes a big difference.

Rent.

Learn and rent.

Are you playing with depth-of-field? Do you know how to compose an image that's interesting? How to choose the proper shutter speed to get the image you want?

If you just want to click and have a picture that's in focus, go with a point and shoot or non DSLR. If you're at the point where you can't do something you really want to do with your current camera, it's time to move up to a "real" camera.

I was a photo major in college, but put down my film camera once I lost access to the darkroom. I tried to fill the gap with different point and shoots, but the two things that killed the genre for me were the terribly "slow" lenses (small apertures) and the crappy shutter button response times.

Adorama rents good equipment here in NYC, you may luck out and find a decent camera rental shop in your 'hood, or you may have to do mail order. Since you don't own any lenses yet, try a Nikon body and a Canon body, and try a couple different lenses. Neither is particularly better than the other, it comes down to what you prefer to work with: some people understand one more easily than the other. There are good lenses for each camera, though some focal lengths are better represented by certain brands. There is no hands-down winner.

For Nikon, you can use almost any lens they ever made on a DSLR body. Some exceptions apply. For Canon, it's almost any autofocus lens. The sensor size (aka crop factor) is where things get odd.

If you really want to see a difference between what you can shoot with a DSLR and a P&S, find yourself a "fast" lens in your desired focal length and shoot it wide open. You'll never get that with a pocket camera.

I don't know how your area is for used cameras,

But check out the different brands personally. See how they feel in your hands. A camera that doesn't fit your hand, or button positioning that just doesn't make sense to you is a camera you probably aren't going to enjoy shooting with.

Otherwise, it is hard to go wrong with the Canon XTi and 30D or Nikon D70s or D200 for good, solid used cameras. I do not really know much about the Canon camera line, but I do know that in Nikon, I wouldn't really suggest the D50, D40 or D60. The D50 is a neutered D70 in essence, and doesn't really save up much money now on the used market. The D40 and D60 however, have the decided problem of lacking an in-body AF drive, which kills their usefulness in using Nikon's vast selection of awesome older lenses. One of the lenses that I really want is the 80-200mm F2.8 which requires the AF drive to operate. The benefit of this lens is that it I can usually find it for $800, whereas a 70-200mm 2.8 lens will run me an extra $400.

The Pentax K20D is another solid option, on the plus side, it has great weather sealing for its class. Take it out in any weather, it LIKES it! Pentax also has a great catalog of weather sealed lenses, and classic glass to choose from. On the minus; It's ISO performance is not great. As well, Pentax glass is just shy of being the same quality as Nikon or Canon. Sometimes having a bit more distortion, or a little more chromatic abberations, etc. But do not take this to mean the glass is bad, on this scale, it's nit picking.

Sony I have no experience in, and cannot comment.

Olympus DSLRs are great for what they are, and what they are is a bit of a niche market. They use a smaller sensor than any other DSLR, with all the tradeoffs that come with it: They are smaller, lighter, more compact bodies. The lenses are smaller as well, and being honest: can be brutally sharp because of this (Smaller glass = less surface area = less impurities/areas for an error). Problems come in ISO performance, depth of field, less wide-angle, etc.

For first glass: I highly suggest a 50mm F1.8 prime lens for any camera you choose. All of them seem to be razor sharp, they are light and fun. Great for portaits and most general photography you will run into. It basically replaced the stock 18-70mm that came with my D70. After that, try to save up for a 80-200 F2.8 class lens. Available from most manufacturers. I have yet to get one, but my god how I want one. Very useful zoom range, sharp, and useful in most light situations.

If you've been using a canon and like it, stick with the Canon DSLRs - a lot of the menu functions and controls are similar and it will speed you up.

Here's the unbiased breakdown -

Nikon - the professional news guy's normal choice. Plusses: They normally pull slightly better quality images than anything else out there, and their lenses are the best around. Most of their digitals will give you lower/highe ASA speeds than others. Minusses: $$$ for accesories and lenses, slightly less saturated colors and smaller color gamut than others.

Canon - more common with semi-pro's and artistic photogs. Plusses: Colors that no one else can touch. Lenses and accessories are plentiful and cheap(er). The automated shooting settings are pretty good, giving you a step above simple point and shoot without going full manual. Minusses: Image quality is not quite as good in the non-pro models.

The other brands aren't worth considering IMHO once you take into account accessories and support.

I shoot with a Canon XSi and love it. I wish I'd stepped up one more model to have the HD video capability, but that also forces me to concentrate. One more bit of advice: no matter what you get, study the manual. All the concepts like focal length, fstop, depth of field, etc are covered there and it will teach you to maximize the hardware's potential. If you buy an expensive camera and use it like a point-and-shoot, you get point and shoot pictures.

My Photo Site : ultraclyde.smugmug.com

I wouldn't worry about the body as much as the lenses. You can pick up a 2+ year old semi-pro Canon body for $250-300 and it'll produce AMAZING images with prime lenses and decent zooms. I'm still using a 20D and 40D and the images are way, way, way better than a new SLR with a kit lens. The only place the older bodies really suffer is in extreme low light (ie, shooting by candlelight isn't as easy) and they don't do video. I'd go with one of the Canon 20/30/40/50D's for the significantly better ergonomics (IMO).

Used body, 50mm f1.8, and kit lens to start. Then add a super wide zoom (10-20 Sigma or similar), a better prime (Sigma 30mm f1.4), good tele zoom (70-200), macro (100mm f2.8), better mid-range zoom (24-70) and budget flash system as the need arises.

If I were starting over, I'd go Nikon for the slightly better control layout, selection of lenses (particularly older lenses) and slightly better support for older flash systems. But Canon or Nikon is fine. The color isn't so much of an issue if you shoot RAW and process in Lightroom (which is where half the improvement over P&S cameras comes from, IMO).

I have a Rebel XTi kit +50mm 1.8+ 18-250mm Tamron lens+ battery grip+other bonuses if you are interested.

Im not a photographer, but SWMBO took many classes in college, and recently rekindled her curiosity with the subject. We got her a Sony Alpha 500 about 2 years ago, and shes very happy with it. Easy to care for, and apparently older Minolta glass works on the body, so finding decent lenses for cheap is not tough at all.

just my .02

I've got a 10 year old Nikon D50.

I've also go $1200 in glass. Not much by professional standards, but enough that I wouldn't switch systems.

The nice thing about the body is that I really don't care about it. If I bang it against something? No big deal. If it gets a little damp? No big deal. As long as it focuses and takes the picture, that's all that matters to me.

One thing I'm noticing is that point and shoot imaging is getting worlds better than it once was. A co-worker of mine is taking excellent landscape photos with his point and shoot.

In the end, the DSLR is all about capture speed and optical zoom. Point and shoots may be improving on the capture speed, but they'll never be able to capture the flecks of rubber and gravel coming a tire in a slide.

One thing I will be interested to see is the 3/4 Sensor cameras like the Nikon N1 with the adapters to utilize DX lenses. I know they are out there, but I haven't seen many results with them. You can even take 1080p video with the Nikon 1 V1. Combine that with the ability to focus and utilize optical zoom and you've got a really nice super small DSLR in your hand.

I shoot with a Canon T3. It's a good entry level DSLR, and it is WAY above my head. I could spend three years learning how to use this thing (and I probably will).

I agree with the renting idea. I started in digital photograpy with a Kodak DC120 (ancient stuff). When I wanted to go the DSLR route I got an Olympus E10 and then a couple different Canons with a bunch of lenses.

After spending more $ than most GRMers do on their cars I still was unhappy. Because of the size, weight,etc. I didn't always have a camera with me and missed some neat photo ops.

So I sold all the Canon DSLR stuff and bought a Canon G-series and 3 Canon A480's so I could put one in each car. Since then I have replaced the G with a Canon SX10IS and am thinking about replacing the A480s with S90s and will still have some $ left in the "camera fund".

The image quality of the new P&S cameras is as good as my early DLSRs. And once I process the pics and compress them for on the Internet it is hard to tell the difference.

I'm not a big fan of renting lenses, personally. Perhaps I've just gotten unlucky, but when I've tried it I've gotten stuck with banged-up equipment that didn't work right. For low end gear, you'll wind up spending enough extra on shipping & insurance that you're not saving all that much compared to buying. IMHO, you get a lot better bang for your buck buying gear (especially used gear), trying it for a while, and then selling if you don't like it. Why spend $100 to rent a lens for a week, if you can spend $600 to buy one used and get $550 selling it again 3 months later?

OK, for higher-end stuff like 500mm primes that cost as much as a BMW, I can see the value in renting. :)

DSLR bodies depreciate like electronics gear, because that's what they are, spend $2K on a camera body today and you'll be lucky to get half that selling it in two years. Lenses (especially high end ones) hold their value extremely well, a $2K lens will probably only lose a couple hundred over five years, assuming you keep it in good shape.

$250 for an XTi with a kit lens is probably in the right ballpark, and should be plenty to start with. The only suggestion I have on Canon bodies is to stay away from the original Digital Rebel/300D (the one that Keith has), because it's got a really slow startup time, 2-3 seconds from when you power on until it'll shoot. That's not so bad for power on, but it does it for coming out of sleep mode too, and that caused me to miss a lot of photos when I had that body.

Yeah, you do have to plan ahead with the wake-up time. You can set the amount of time to sleep, and it's easy enough to work around. I've been shooting with that camera since it was new and it never catches me by surprise anymore. I just get used to fondling the shutter button once in a while if I want to keep it awake - say, at the track. I'd be happier without it, but it's not a major problem unless you're a photojournalist.

I'm a Nikon guy. Nikon and Cannon both make wonderfully fine cameras, but the user interfaces are both complex. Once you learn on a Nikon, you tend to stay with a Nikon just because you don't want to have to learn another series of buttons.

I have a D70 and its wonderful. I've probably had it for 6 years. There is an on-screen menu that lets you easily access all the functions, or if you memorize what the icons mean on all the buttons, there are shortcut buttons. Once you learn those you're golden. I can look one way into the kitchen with fluorescent lighting, punch a couple buttons and set the flash for it, then spin around and shoot something in the living room with incandescent lighting and do the same thing without looking.

My only dislike with the D70 is that you can't shoot using the display, you have to look through the eyepiece. It really hasn't been an issue, but if I (for instance) want to frame a photo by holding the camera up in the air, I can't.

For that reason I think I'll try to find a good used D300. Not only does it give you that option, but good lord its image stabilization in low light is incredible. Good saturations, wonderful contrasts, and I can hand-hold a 1-second shot if I'm careful (and as long as the subject isn't moving much)

We just found a new Rebel XS for $270 (CAD), and jumped on it. Fast auto-focus, good reviews, and when not compared to the newest latest and greatest supercamera's... a great performer.

We're using a Pentax K-X. Seems to be pretty awesome, still trying to learn to use it effectively.

The 18-55mm kit lens isn't great, but it's serviceable.

Here's a pic we took a few days ago... No manipulation of light levels.

Keven wrote: I have a Rebel XTi kit +50mm 1.8+ 18-250mm Tamron lens+ battery grip+other bonuses if you are interested.

I PM'ed ya

Thanks for all the info ya'll.

Still doing some reading and all that to figure out my move

Found this on CL. seems like a decnt deal but i have little experience. Good amount of extras

Would prefer a refurb or like a certified preowned kinda deal rather then personal cause you dont know full history but

What type of photography are you doing? That's really going to determine what spec you should be chasing with your money. For instance, I do motorsports photography pretty much exclusively, and for me, Megapixels are downright worthless. Even with my meager 10Mp Canon 1000D, the images are 4 times the size I can actually use. However, what kills me is the shots-per-second; my camera only does a little over 3, I'd really love to have something that does more like 8 or 10. However, if I was printing out posters, I'd need all the resolution I could get.

Now, that being said, the body isn't nearly as important as the lenses. The way I've always heard it is "You're dating the body, but you're married to the glass." For lenses, there are two numbers: the focal length and the aperature, commonly referred to as F-stop. Angle of vision of a lens is inversely proportional to the focal distance (i.e. an 18mm is wide angle, a 600mm is very narrow), and zoom is directly proportional, with 50mm being about equivalent to normal human eyesight. You can loosely take aperature as the quality of the lens, with lower numbers being better. What that number actually is is the ratio of the aperature to the focal distance, which is why lenses with high focal distances inherently have "worse" f-stops. Price goes up exponentially with larger aperatures, to give you some example, a 50mm 1.8 is a $100 lens, a 50mm 1.4 is like a $500 lens, and a 50mm 1.2 is like $1500. Larger aperatures allow you to use lower shutter speeds, higher ISOs, and work in lower light, and allow for reduced depth of field. Canon and Nikor glass is definitely superior to 3rd party glass, and it's comensurately more expensive.

Insofar as brand, you can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon, pick whichever feels better to you. They go back and forth as to to who has the best lenses, right now it might be Nikon, six months from now it'll be Canon, and six months after that it'll be Nikon again, and so on and so on. However, whichever you pick, forever will it dominate your destiny.

One thing I forgot to add - with Canon cameras, you can see how they roughly compare to each other just by the model name. The less digits in the number, the better the camera, and the higher the number the newer the camera. So, a 1D is better than a 60D is better than a 450D; a 450D is newer than a 400D or a 350D.

With rebels you have to go to wikipedia and see what "number" they actually are, for instance, my "Rebel XS" is actually a 1000D.

The other thing is that digital sensors have a finite life, so if you pick up a used camera, you need to check the shot count. Most sensors are good to around 100k shots, after that they start to degrade.

ReverendDexter wrote: One thing I forgot to add - The other thing is that digital sensors have a finite life, so if you pick up a used camera, you need to check the shot count. Most sensors are good to around 100k shots, after that they start to degrade.

Is this serious? I thought they were good to go...as in kinda lifetime units. I did not know they had a "life"

I have a canon xt 8 mp. The new ones are far better, but I love mine. I'll load some pictures up later displaying the quality.

I shoot with a Nikon D5000 at work, and an Olympus Tough at home. The difference in quality is amazing, but so is the way I shoot.

At work, I need good quality and I can take my time, use a tripod, play with lighting, etc. The Nikon is awesome for that. For taking the kids to the beach, it sucks.

The Olympus is waterproof to 33 feet, drop-proof, freeze-proof, shock-proof, etc. For something that I need to toss in my pocket and pull out on rollercoasters, swimming pools, and sled rides, it is awesome.

If I had to choose something to do both, I would try a new PEN camera from Nikon or Canon. You can drop the lens down really small and have something portable and easy to use, or swap in a long lens for shooting at the Autocross or School Play, and you would still have enough quality for catalog work in a pinch. Not rugged of course, but a great all-around option IMHO.

When they are not $700, I will get one.

CarKid1989 wrote: Is this serious?

Absolutely.