PDA

View Full Version : I can has D-SLR?


Ratboy
01-23-2010, 03:37 AM
I am looking at buying a D-SLR and need some much needed advice.

I know we have some photographers out there (Zach/Pez), what do you suggest?

lostknight
01-23-2010, 07:22 AM
While the typical choice is to get a Nikon or Canon, I got a huge bargin on a Sony Alpha DSLR A350 last year. Sony's first generation cameras were panned pretty hard, but the new Alpha's use Minolta lenses and there are also Zeiss lenses if you have a lot of money to burn, have stabilization built into the camera, not the lenses (which makes lenses cheaper). The new model of the 350 is the A380L

If you are looking for a transition from a compact camera, this is a pretty good option. Typically cheaper, but 6000 pictures (in the last year) later, I am still very happy with it, and just picked up a telephoto lens for it.

orangemonkey
01-23-2010, 08:18 AM
While the typical choice is to get a Nikon or Canon, I got a huge bargin on a Sony Alpha DSLR A350 last year. Sony's first generation cameras were panned pretty hard, but the new Alpha's use Minolta lenses and there are also Zeiss lenses if you have a lot of money to burn, have stabilization built into the camera, not the lenses (which makes lenses cheaper). The new model of the 350 is the A380L

If you are looking for a transition from a compact camera, this is a pretty good option. Typically cheaper, but 6000 pictures (in the last year) later, I am still very happy with it, and just picked up a telephoto lens for it.

Spot on. Sony purchased Konica Minolta which now supplies key ingredients to their SLR line. After comparing to Nikon/Canon I recently purchased the A380 for the wifey. The base is super light and you can swap in vintage Minolta lenses. You can't take anything away from Canon/Nikon but I was very surprised by the quality of Sony.

Broncoman13
01-23-2010, 08:31 AM
I just bought a Canon Ti1 over the holidays. 15.1 MP and the capability to shoot 1080p Video (or 720 if you'd like). Shoots about 3.5 pics/sec which is a little slower than some of the more expensive cameras but hardly noticeable for me. It comes with a kit lens that is perfect for shooting day to day pictures. The kit lens has both auto focus (AF) and Image Stabilization (IS). Canon claims the IS feature is the equivalent of 4 stops though I think that is probably a bit of an exaggeration. I recently found and purchased a 75-250 lens (equiv. to 400m) that has both AF and IS. I've shot several pictures with it and the quality is impressive. I'll see if I can post a picture but not sure you can see the full quality on the OM. Great camera and worth the $700 (give or take) that I paid for it.

Broncoman13
01-23-2010, 08:43 AM
Hard to tell on this picture, but at it's native resolution I can zoom into her Lax Head and read everything on it. Awesome resolution for a decent price.

Broncoman13
01-23-2010, 09:04 AM
Here is one with the new lens. I had to cut it down from the original 20.5 MP (RAW format) picture and reduce size and quality to fit the OM parameters, but you can see that from about 30 yards away the zoom and quality are still quite good.

Killericon
01-23-2010, 11:33 AM
I got a Nikon D3000, and it does everything I want it to do. Unless you're a hardcore photographer, it'll do.

Houshyamama
01-23-2010, 11:49 AM
Hard to go wrong with the Nikon D40 if you're not looking to spend a boatload of cash, read this review by Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm

I have one and I love it, here's some pics I've taken:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39087255@N03/4293958248/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39087255@N03/4291044767/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39087255@N03/4189774998/sizes/l/

Merlin
01-23-2010, 12:26 PM
You might want to give a price range, purpose, video (what resolution if yes), are you willing to spend on lenses?

Play2win
01-23-2010, 12:52 PM
Hard to go wrong with the Nikon D40 if you're not looking to spend a boatload of cash, read this review by Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm

I have one and I love it, here's some pics I've taken:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39087255@N03/4293958248/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39087255@N03/4291044767/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39087255@N03/4189774998/sizes/l/

He's a real good source of information.

PaintballCLE
01-23-2010, 12:58 PM
i have a sony alpha series and i reccomend it to anyone. Not only is it as good as the canon's you can use kodak/minolta lenses on it. So instead of paying 700 dolalrs for a wide angle lens, get a minolta one on ebay for 50 bucks. The money you will save will make it worth it. Bestbuy usually runs a special on the sony's every so often. usually you can get the camera, regular lens, telephoto (zoom) lens and some other goodies at a GREAT package price.

Jason in LA
01-23-2010, 01:19 PM
I am looking at buying a D-SLR and need some much needed advice.

I know we have some photographers out there (Zach/Pez), what do you suggest?

What's the budget and what are you trying to shoot?

I'm thousands of dollars into what I have, but I'm making money, so I wouldn't tell you to buy what I have.

DenverBrit
01-23-2010, 01:25 PM
There are some very good detailed reviews here:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dslr+camera+reviews&search_type=&aq=7m&oq=camera+reviews

Ratboy
01-23-2010, 02:54 PM
What's the budget and what are you trying to shoot?

I'm thousands of dollars into what I have, but I'm making money, so I wouldn't tell you to buy what I have.

Mostly of my travels (nature, blah blah) and I want to be able to shoot surfers.

Price: Under $1000.

I have been thinking about the D3000. The body is a little small, but i'm sure I would get over it.

Swedish Extrovert
01-23-2010, 03:25 PM
All I can say is: I worked as a photographer for a Navy newspaper for 5 years - get a Cannon. Nikon sucks.

Merlin
01-23-2010, 05:12 PM
Mostly of my travels (nature, blah blah) and I want to be able to shoot surfers.
So you want a camera that is good for sports, whose telephoto lenses are not too expensive and that is sealed (in the beach you could be exposed to water and sand).

Now, do you prefer a camera that does most of the work for you (mostly automatic), or do you want to have some control of the camera (do you want it to have features that allow you to have some manual control)?

Ratboy
01-23-2010, 07:38 PM
So you want a camera that is good for sports, whose telephoto lenses are not too expensive and that is sealed (in the beach you could be exposed to water and sand).

Now, do you prefer a camera that does most of the work for you (mostly automatic), or do you want to have some control of the camera (do you want it to have features that allow you to have some manual control)?

At first I would want something that will do the majority of the leg work, as time passes and I get more familiar with it, I'd like to control some of it.

smalltowngrll
01-23-2010, 09:48 PM
We got a Nikon D5000 and it's great! Lots of great things and it has the live action screen which the D3000 did not.

Sony is great but if you are a Mac user, Sony is not user friendly in combination with Mac's. (from what I've been told by some techies)

lostknight
01-23-2010, 10:37 PM
We got a Nikon D5000 and it's great! Lots of great things and it has the live action screen which the D3000 did not.

Sony is great but if you are a Mac user, Sony is not user friendly in combination with Mac's. (from what I've been told by some techies)

I have a mac, and a Sony. No problems ;-)

Taco John
01-24-2010, 01:49 AM
Mostly of my travels (nature, blah blah) and I want to be able to shoot surfers.

Price: Under $1000.

I have been thinking about the D3000. The body is a little small, but i'm sure I would get over it.



If I were in your situation, and had $1000 to spend, I'd get this camera as cheaply as I could find it (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Camera-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B0012YA85A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1264325636&sr=8-1), and use the rest of the money to buy these lenses:

Canon EF 50mm (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1264325865&sr=1-1)

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00004THD0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1264325915&sr=1-2)

Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 DC AF Wide Angle Zoom Lens (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-50mm-3-5-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002DGXUQK/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1264325996&sr=1-5)


That's an arsenal of photography power right out of the gates for $850.

Broncoman13
01-24-2010, 07:28 AM
Why not spend $100 more and get Canon's 2nd best camera (behind the $3000 MarkII)? The T1i is the big brother to the
XSi. Everything it can do plus better resolution, more comfortable feel and a serious up grade in features that won't leave you feeling behind the power curb. Then again, it is true that I often only use half of the camera's capability unless I am shooting something serious, in which case I usually shoot in RAW and copy first to play with it. But seriously, the T1i is widely considered the 2nd best Canon ever. I compared everything in the price range about 2 months ago and the T1i was the best thing going in the 1.6x sensor.



If I were in your situation, and had $1000 to spend, I'd get this camera as cheaply as I could find it (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Camera-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B0012YA85A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1264325636&sr=8-1), and use the rest of the money to buy these lenses:

Canon EF 50mm (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1264325865&sr=1-1)

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00004THD0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1264325915&sr=1-2)

Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 DC AF Wide Angle Zoom Lens (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-50mm-3-5-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002DGXUQK/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1264325996&sr=1-5)


That's an arsenal of photography power right out of the gates for $850.

huh??
01-24-2010, 01:50 PM
Any of the entry level DSLRs will take care of what you're looking for. They will all have a "full auto" mode to get you started, and will have a pop-up flash. The question might be more of, "How much do you want to spend now, and how much do you want to spend later?" If you think that you're likely to progress with photography and get really involved, you'll want to consider the whole system. (camera bodies, lenses, accessories...) There are those who end up finding that the learning curve is steeper than they want to commit to, or find that carrying a DSLR is more cumbersome than they think it's worth. A point-and-shoot is much easier to carry around. Some people are of the opinion that "...the best camera is the one you actually use..." A consideration might be something like Canon's G11 compact. It will still shoot RAW and allow manual adjustments too. Image stabilizers being in-lens or in-body creates a lot of debate of which is better. They both work. In-body stabilization (Sony, Olympus, Pentax) is supposed to allow for better development in lens design only, so it's supposed to allow for better optics at same/lower price. 70-200mm f2.8: Canon w/o IS $1,228.50, w/ IS $1,705.95; Nikon $1,999.94 (older version), Sony $1,799, Olympus (equiv) $2,049.95. In most cases that I've seen, the in-body stabilization systems do not have cheaper lenses, and I don't know if they're necessarily better. Also, you may go to an event where the venue has a "No professional camera" policy. Which is to say; a camera with a detachable lens.
Something else to consider is the Olympus PEN E-P1 Micro FourThirds. It is about the size of a compact with a much larger sensor and has interchangeable lenses.

Just more for you to chew on...:welcome:

jmz313
01-24-2010, 06:23 PM
Here's what u do.

1) Go to Camera store
2) Hold every camera in your price range in your hand and take pics.
3) BUY the one that feels best.

If you have friends with a certain camera system, look harder at that brand so u can borrow glass/ accessories. I recommend to all my friends they buy Nikon so when they ask me for help, I can help since thats what I shoot.

Anyone who tells you you need a certain brand cause that brand takes better pictures is not worth listening to.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2724/4155362329_0de670595e_o.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2724/4155362329_0de670595e_o.jpg

bfoflcommish
01-24-2010, 07:51 PM
I have a sony a330l with a couple nice lenses all for under 850 from best buy. I am completely noob to dslr, go to the amateur photography thread here and see some pics it takes.

Taco John
01-24-2010, 07:53 PM
Why not spend $100 more and get Canon's 2nd best camera (behind the $3000 MarkII)? The T1i is the big brother to the
XSi. Everything it can do plus better resolution, more comfortable feel and a serious up grade in features that won't leave you feeling behind the power curb. Then again, it is true that I often only use half of the camera's capability unless I am shooting something serious, in which case I usually shoot in RAW and copy first to play with it. But seriously, the T1i is widely considered the 2nd best Canon ever. I compared everything in the price range about 2 months ago and the T1i was the best thing going in the 1.6x sensor.



My only rationale was that going with the cheaper one, he'd be able to afford all of those lenses, and have about $150 left over in a $1000 budget to buy a camera bag to store it all in. It would be a killer set-up for a beginner just cutting his teeth.

ZachKC
01-24-2010, 11:49 PM
If I were in your situation, and had $1000 to spend, I'd get this camera as cheaply as I could find it (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Camera-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B0012YA85A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1264325636&sr=8-1), and use the rest of the money to buy these lenses:

Canon EF 50mm (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1264325865&sr=1-1)

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00004THD0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1264325915&sr=1-2)

Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 DC AF Wide Angle Zoom Lens (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-50mm-3-5-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002DGXUQK/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1264325996&sr=1-5)


That's an arsenal of photography power right out of the gates for $850.

This is good advice. Don't get overly consumed in choice of body. Invest in lenses.

footstepsfrom#27
12-01-2010, 08:29 AM
i have a sony alpha series and i reccomend it to anyone. Not only is it as good as the canon's you can use kodak/minolta lenses on it. So instead of paying 700 dolalrs for a wide angle lens, get a minolta one on ebay for 50 bucks. The money you will save will make it worth it. Bestbuy usually runs a special on the sony's every so often. usually you can get the camera, regular lens, telephoto (zoom) lens and some other goodies at a GREAT package price.
You don't need to spend $700 on a lense to fit a cheap DSLR, but any kind of 35mm lense you buy on eBay for $50 is unlikely to be designed for a digital SLR unless it's some piece of crap from China. On most DSLR's you can mount older non-digital or even non-auto focus lenses, but you lose the camera's focusing or other systems and have to go with manual systems and focus. I like this option for macro lenses or long telephotos which are obscenely expensive in the digital version, but for an every day lense, he's far better off spending a couple hundred for an inexpensive kit lense instead of going with the eBay $50 cheapy. If you're going to use non digital lenses, you might as well buy an old Pentax K1000 for that same $50 and go all old school because the camera's electronics are mostly negated by using an old lense. Keep in mind film will be entirely gone within the next couple years...so actually the Pentax K1000 will be a paperweight soon enough.

footstepsfrom#27
12-01-2010, 08:37 AM
This is good advice. Don't get overly consumed in choice of body. Invest in lenses.
I disagree to this extent; if you need a faster lense for low light or a very sharp lense built to pro standards spend money on glass, but most camera manufacturers sell good kit lenses that are just fine for what 95% of people who use DSLR's use them for. Displaying photos on the web negates the need for super sharp lenses since the medium is more limiting than the lense will display anyway, and in any case, a lot of what you get with the more expensive lense is body construction and durability. Cheap lenses don't stand up to abuse but they often take good pictures. There's no reason for someone who shoots with a DSLR like it's a more advanced version of a P&S to worry about buying lots of lenses anyway. Something like an 18-135mm zoom will handle almost every shooting situation, thus negating the need for a drawer full of lenses.

For a $500 DSLR I wouldn't spend more than about $400 on a good all purpose lense, less if it comes in a kit.

TDmvp
12-01-2010, 09:23 AM
Thx for coming over to this thread and shedding some light on my Sony cam with Konica Minolta lens question from the other thread...