Digital Camera Experts

Are there any digital camera experts out there?

I've generally mostly only used point and shoot cameras the last several years. I've always gone with Canon cameras. I had a Canon Powershot S330 and now have a SD 790.

Point and shoots are nice for parties and bringing around with ease, but I'd like an SLR for vacations and trips and stuff. Having it be somewhat easy to bring around though is still a priority, cause I know I'll never use it if its too difficult to bring around.

I'm unsure on my budget. I'd imagine I was expecting around $600-700, but some friends have ones that I thought would be in that range and I end up being pretty surprised to hear they are actually around $1800.

In theory I'd say I'm willing to spend $600-800, and would have to be a pretty big reason to go above $1k or something.

Any thoughts/suggestions? Thanks for the help!

(ps: sorry if this is a huge vague general question)

Get a Nikon D3100 with the kit lens, add maybe a 35mm f/1.8DX fixed focal lens and you're all set, those should be around $600-700 total and excellent to start out with. The next option up would be the Nikon D7000 which is spectacular in every way, but will cost about twice as much.

The major differences between Nikon and Canon are ergonomics, so go try both and see which you prefer, both make excellent and very equal cameras. Also Nikon's kit lenses tend to be way better than Canon's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Get a Nikon D3100 with the kit lens, add maybe a 35mm f/1.8DX fixed focal lens and you're all set, those should be around $600-700 total and excellent to start out with. The next option up would be the Nikon D7000 which is spectacular in every way, but will cost about twice as much.

The major differences between Nikon and Canon are ergonomics, so go try both and see which you prefer, both make excellent and very equal cameras. Also Nikon's kit lenses tend to be way better than Canon's.

---

Great advice here. I'm not sure your level of knowledge but I'd just like to add a couple of things:

- With DSLRs you zoom manually using the lens itself. Divide the top number by the bottom number to get an idea of how much you can zoom. Therefore your standard 18-55 kit lens is equivalent to basically 3x zoom. If you want to take closeups of, say, the moon, animals, or your favourite girl as you lie behind the bushes in her garden, then you need a telephoto lens like this one: Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG Macro For Nikon Digital & Film: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics.

- Use this website: Digital Cameras: Digital Photography Review, News, Reviews, Forums, FAQ. It has absolutely amazing reviews. Just bear in mind that sometimes Canon's model numbers for cameras differ between the UK and the States.

Reality check.

The main reason for buying an SLR is that you get to use different lenses, filters and external flashes etc. If you aren't going to get into that (like most people who buy an SLR), then what you have is a very bulky and expensive point and shoot.

With a kit zoom lens the quality isn't significantly better than what you get with a good point and shoot. Prime lenses is the way to go anyway imo.

Thanks for the help so far guys!

Cocco - thanks I'll look into those suggestions

Ash - yah I used to use that site when looking into buying point and shoots. Thanks for your info on the zoom, yah I'm kind of a noob when it comes to camera specs etc at this point.

P4s - yah I am somewhat concerned with that. Its hard to say how much I will use all those things, until I actually get them I suppose.

I got a great deal on a Canon 30D, then upgraded to a 7D recently.

Ash is a little off, sure a 18-55 has a 3x range. On a crop camera (aka any affordable DSLR) there is a 1.6 factor. To calculate the zoom you divide by 35 mm (relative to the old film "standard") then multiple by 1.6.

18/35 * 1.6 = 0.82
55/35 * 1.6 = 2.5

So your effective zoom range is 0.8 - 2.5x

Knowing WHAT you want to shoot is the biggest determinate. I like shooting action shots, so I bought a 70-200mm and the fastest canon under $5k. This setup has a 3x-9x zoom range.

If you are not worried about low light or fast speed or snappy response or very wide angle, etc . I would consider a PnS with full manual capability.

Now that I mention that, you can start experimenting with your camera to figure out where it is lacking for your desires. Know what effect changing your iso setting has, then playing with Tv and Av modes (most people use Av or full manual). These settings were not easily accessible on my Canon SD880.

I'm waiting to upgrade my 1Ds to the 5DmkIII. What's taking so long, Canon?

Anyone got any thoughts on mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras?

I don't really know much about camera formats.

Had another thought. If you just want better pictures I would lean towards a high end PnS, or a micro 3/4 camera or something. If you want to get into photography as a hobby then a DSLR would be the way to go.

As is, I have printed one 8x10 picture for my mom, and I could probably have gotten that picture for less money. The action shots I get, mostly for fun, I can not get with a lesser setup. But photography (and editing) is something I intend to continue perusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pocketfours

I'm waiting to upgrade my 1Ds to the 5DmkIII. What's taking so long, Canon?

---

So what balla lenses do you have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swiggidy

So what balla lenses do you have?

---

:)

Prime lenses
Canon 85mm 1.2L mkI
Canon 90mm TS-E
Canon 50mm 1.4
Zenitar Fish-Eye

Zoom lenses
Canon 70-200 2.8L IS mkI
Canon 17-40 4.0L
Sigma 12mm-24 mm 4.5-5.6

Also have the Canon 1.4x and 2.0x extenders. I used to have a Peleng 8mm circular Fish-Eye but sold it when I upgraded full frame. I also sold my Canon MP-E 65mm macro. Wasn't happy with its sharpness and usability.

ask yourself a few questions = what do you want to use your new camera for? what do you anticipate doing with it? will the bulk/weight affect how likely this is? etc. an example - my girlfriend chose not to take her nice canon dSLR on a two week hiking/exploring trip around Norway due to the weight of body + lenses, and also due to the fact that my micro (powershot A590 with faux-slr capability = you can control shutter speed etc and it only cost a few FTP points ;)) takes ok image quality as long as the light is good. And cos i refused to carry her dSLR on the grounds that i was already carrying a camera.

do you already know people with SLRs? are you on terms that means you would lend each other lenses? do you want to shoot movie footage? are you interested in macro work? landscapes? playing with a new toy?

nikon and canon have got a similar range. Most people have a bias towards what they use -> suggests that both brands are solid. I like the canon 550d a whole lot, but haven't bought one for myself yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pocketfours

Reality check.

The main reason for buying an SLR is that you get to use different lenses, filters and external flashes etc. If you aren't going to get into that (like most people who buy an SLR), then what you have is a very bulky and expensive point and shoot.

With a kit zoom lens the quality isn't significantly better than what you get with a good point and shoot. Prime lenses is the way to go anyway imo.

---

Yes, the best point-and-shoots nowadays have very equal quality to most DSLRs, the main differences are speed (shooting anything that moves) and the ability to change lenses for different purposes. The Nikon kit lenses such as the 18-55 VR are excellent for 80% of anyone's outdoor shots, portraits, closeups, etc. and will produce professional quality photos. The lens is useless indoors though, and the 35mm f/1.8 is for that, and even better for portraits etc. If you need a telephoto for shooting sports or birds or your neighbor in the shower, go for it, but pretty much everything else can be covered with the 2 lenses I mentioned. At least for me, the point of a DSLR is to have a versatile camera that can do anything, not to lug around dozens of lenses just because I can. If the kit lens does a great job I see no reason to not use it out of some principle. The OP asked for a package of $600 to start photography with, a single "prime lens" easily costs that alone.

Advice ive been given is get canon or nikon. Canon rebels (aka 550D etc. depending on where yo live) have a good reputation. I have a 550D.

Prime lenses are supposed to be fun/good for learning and i been meaning to gets me one of them. Basically they dont zoom afaik so you are forced to move around a lot.

Thanks everyone for all the suggestions.

I'm assuming if I start with the kit lenses, I have the flexibility to move towards p4's ballin' style later on, or does the base pre-determine what I'll be able to use?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

The OP asked for a package of $600 to start photography with, a single "prime lens" easily costs that alone.

---

Prime lens = fixed focal length. You can get a very sharp Canon 50mm prime for $128.

Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: Camera & Photo

Stopped down this one produces as good or probably slightly better results than a professional zoom lens costing ten or twenty times more. Wide open it's pretty soft though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by griffey24

Thanks everyone for all the suggestions.

I'm assuming if I start with the kit lenses, I have the flexibility to move towards p4's ballin' style later on, or does the base pre-determine what I'll be able to use?

---

No, you will have the flexibility of course!

I still think you should skip the kit zooms altogether and buy a stand alone body with a cheap prime until you want to invest in something better, although as a beginning photographer you will automatically think that zoom is something very important (lol) and I won't be able to convince you otherwise.

As Daven pointed out you should absolutely go with the same brand as your friends are using. Definitely choose either Canon or Nikon.

If you decide to go canon I could sell you my 50mm f/1.8 and 18-55mm EF-S at a decent markdown over retail ~$300. Both are in great shape.

Not sure what comes with a rebel body and what deal you get on that (prob the 18-55mm)

I like this site a lot for lens reviews
Canon & Nikon Digital SLR Camera & Lens Reviews

Thanks for the help guys.

swiggidy - I will let you know for sure!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swiggidy

If you decide to go canon I could sell you my 50mm f/1.8 and 18-55mm EF-S at a decent markdown over retail ~$300. Both are in great shape.

Not sure what comes with a rebel body and what deal you get on that (prob the 18-55mm)

I like this site a lot for lens reviews
Canon & Nikon Digital SLR Camera & Lens Reviews

---

But then how will you take pictures of frisbees?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

But then how will you take pictures of frisbees?

---

No worries, the frisbee photography world is safe. Being passed from one ultimate player to another!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mbiz

I have a 550D.

---

I have a 500D. I feel like I've been punched in the gut.

Stupid rate of obsolescence increasing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by griffey24

No worries, the frisbee photography world is safe. Being passed from one ultimate player to another!

---

Win!

I'll just use my balla lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pocketfours

Reality check.

The main reason for buying an SLR is that you get to use different lenses, filters and external flashes etc.

---

I'm not sure if this has been covered in the thread yet, but I'm gonn sorta disagree here. Another HUGE benifit is the quality of the sensor and software built into the camera. The more expensive cameras have better quality and that makes a tremendous difference in the end result. It's not just lenses.

Additionally, if you can afford quality lenses, zoom lenses are the shit.

Recommended Cameras

Although you never did mention what parts of your current camera were holding you back...

Another option is to grab a used camera. Looks like you can get a Canon 30D for $350-400 on Ebay. I personally would be way happier with an older 30D than a newer 500D, but I'm looking long term for photography development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PlayToWin

I'm not sure if this has been covered in the thread yet, but I'm gonn sorta disagree here. Another HUGE benifit is the quality of the sensor and software built into the camera. The more expensive cameras have better quality and that makes a tremendous difference in the end result. It's not just lenses.

Additionally, if you can afford quality lenses, zoom lenses are the shit.

---

I have to sorta disagree here. The sensor for PnS are perfectly fine in decently lit situations, especially if you're never blowing a print up bigger than 10x8 (seriously who does that anyway?). These improvements are huge when you're trying to take low light pictures which was touched on before.

Zoom lenses are "cool" but primes take far superior photos and it is not even close.

Tripple post!!!

Based on the info provided I would seriously consider this camera (I have considered getting one even though I have a DSLR)
Canon S95

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swiggidy

Zoom lenses are "cool" but primes take far superior photos and it is not even close.

---

Wrong. Do more research.

Edit: I'm talking about pro lenses. Obviously, that's not what Griffey has in mind, so it's irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PlayToWin

Wrong. Do more research.

Edit: I'm talking about pro lenses. Obviously, that's not what Griffey has in mind, so it's irrelevant.

---

you do more research

Lets all do more research!!

man my ex was all into that camera shit i hate that bitch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swiggidy

you do more research

---

When you see people arguing that zoom lenses take better pictures than prime lenses it's probably a good time to realize that you didn't want to talk about photography in a poker forum anyway.

Here's an MTF chart comparison for those who think zoom lenses are the shit (small catch-22 here). These aren't your typical consumer kit zoom lenses either mind you...


http://media.the-digital-picture.com...M-Lens-MTF.jpghttp://media.the-digital-picture.com...M-Lens-MTF.jpg




http://media.the-digital-picture.com...-MTF-Chart.gif


EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L:

http://media.the-digital-picture.com...-MTF-Chart.jpg

Home | The FinePix X100 Professional Photographer's compact digital camera from Fujifilm


Leica Camera AG - Photography - M9


You'll look like Speed Grapher donning either of those

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swiggidy

Although you never did mention what parts of your current camera were holding you back...

Another option is to grab a used camera. Looks like you can get a Canon 30D for $350-400 on Ebay. I personally would be way happier with an older 30D than a newer 500D, but I'm looking long term for photography development.

---

Yah I guess I never said what is holding me back, mostly because there isn't anything specific.

I feel like I'm hardly using my camera these days. I just have this thing that whenever I look at my friends pics with an SLR I'm just more wow'ed/impressed by the quality of the pics.

I have this "vision".. of having lots of framed pictures in my house one day from different places I've traveled to. Would be even nicer if those pics were taken myself!

In terms of specifics though... nothing in particular. Though my camera isn't ideal for dark/dim lighting and not too great for sports pics.

yada yada yada..I guess I'm just a sucker for great quality pictures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pocketfours

When you see people arguing that zoom lenses take better pictures than prime lenses ....

---

I never said zoom's were better. I know they're not as good. What I meant was that to say they're "not even close" is wrong. I've got the Canon 70-200 2.8 and it's fantastic.

Quote:

---

Here's an MTF chart comparison ....

---

Yea, I've never seen these. There's no units on the charts. In the real world, in prints, is it a obvious difference in quality? I kinda doubt it. Before I got my system, I agonized over the issue of zoom vs prime. I went for pro f2.8 zooms and I'm very happy.

Things to think about:
If you want a vacation camera, the versatility of zooms is fantastic.

If you're gonna shoot sports, you'll need a good telephoto (I uses a 2X converter on my 70-200) and you'll need a good autofocus system (depending on the sport). You can't really get good autofocus without spending some cash. Read lots of reviews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PlayToWin

I never said zoom's were better. I know they're not as good. What I meant was that to say they're "not even close" is wrong. I've got the Canon 70-200 2.8 and it's fantastic.

---

I also have the 70-200 2.8L (IS mkI) and it's quite soft at the wide end unless you stop it down. It's very decent at 200mm, even wide open, but afaik that's because it's a 200mm prime design converted into a zoom. It's impossible to argue about what is close and what isn't. If you want to sell your photos you want them pretty damn crisp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PlayToWin

In the real world, in prints, is it a obvious difference in quality? I kinda doubt it. Before I got my system, I agonized over the issue of zoom vs prime. I went for pro f2.8 zooms and I'm very happy.

---

For a professional, the difference is perfectly apparent and obvious. In addition to the sharpness of the lens, there's contrast, vignetting, flare, distortion and CA to consider as well, and for many applications you want a wider aperture than a zoom can provide.

I'm just talking about zooms vs primes, this has nothing to do with griffey wanting a camera for holiday snaps, that is unless he's a perfectionist, like most enthusiastic photographers I know.

Pretty good link if you're interested in all the settings available with a DSLR (also applicable to PnS)
SLR Camera Simulator | Simulates a digital SLR camera

It does not do a good job with simulating depth of field (DoF) but otherwise pretty good.