NoFear and BB, step inside, please...

[MississippiBoy]

We're looking at getting a good (but not $$$$$$) SLR camera. I know that's going to be probably $400 minimum, and probably $600 would be more realistic, before we even start talking about different lenses and gadgets. But what are some recommendations for a decent, no-frills, but capable camera?
All we have is a digital point and shoot that does fine for the "Hey, look here and say cheese" shots, but for good pictures of Caitlyn playing on the slide, wildlife shots, being able to focus on the foreground and "artistically" blur the background...we need somthing better.
I'm no photographer, but I am severely limited by our current camera. So if you would, give me some recommendations for a decent starter-type SLR digital camera. Thanks.

[BigBassin144]

Daniel, I feel that a good P&S will cover your needs fine, and save you quite a bit of money over a DSLR. A good P&S with a telephoto lens will do basically everything an entry level DSLR will without the hassle and addition costs of lenses. Usually these are classified as Advanced P&S cameras.

Something like the Canon PowerShot SX30 IS would be perfect for what you need.

Don't get me wrong, I love my DSLR, but it's not always the best choice. There are a lot of times I wish I had an advanced P&S to just pull out of my bag and shoot. No changing lenses, no buying new lenses (it's as bad as fishing gear! and worse than fishing gear if you're looking at price!) But one thing I don't like is to see people spend hundred on a body and lenses to shoot the camera in full auto. I think for many, it's more of a status thing, "look at my fancy camera!" People think it's going to get them better pictures, but a good photographer can take good pics on a cheap P&S and a really bad one will still take bad pics on a high end DSLR.

If you want to go with a DSLR, here's my advice.

Just like with shimano reels, I like to bash the Nikon guys (like Bryce), but Nikon and Canon both make great cameras, so ignore all the fanboy "this brand is better" crap and buy whichever fits your needs. There were features on the Nikon in my price range I liked over the Canon, but overall I liked the layout of everything on the canon and was already familiar with the menu setup from our PowerShot A640 P&S (not quite like the SX30, but not a cheapie by any means). Also, my uncle shoots canon, so I can borrow lenses.

Megapixels are kind of like bearings, they do good to a certain point. 8MPs are more than enough for printing off simple 4x6 or even 8x10s. Unless you're blowing up pictures big, you don't need 12, 15, 18, 30 megapixels. However, most DSLRs, even entry level ones have 10-12MP.

I shoot with a Canon Rebel XSi, which suits my needs perfectly. I carry both my lenses (an 18-55 and a 55-250) with me at all times. Anything in the Canon Rebel line will work for your needs, and I'd probably suggest a decent walk-around lens like an 18-200mm. It will get you get good pics of fish, of Caitlyn, wildlife, etc. Remember, while Canon and Nikon's glass is usually superior to other brands, you can save money by going with a Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina, which will give good shots as long as they aren't being blown up life size like I mentioned with the megapixels.

Just as before you make a decision on a lens, because there are a couple "duds" in the Canon line up, and I'm sure Nikon has some too. I'm not familiar with Nikon cameras or lenses, but Bryce is, so he can probably recommend one there too.

One last bit of advice if you don't plant on shooting in full auto (I read as much as I could and have never shot mine on auto), is to first off read your owner's manual. And second, read online about the "exposure triangle" - aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. It's important you know how these things work, and work together to get properly exposed pictures.

If you have any more specific questions just ask, and I'll do my best to answer them.

BB

[MississippiBoy]

Ok, I'm following you so far. We already have a decent P&S camera for quick shots, not an Advanced P&S, so I'm really looking to upgrade. I don't want to get a camera, use it for a while, then realize I want to do more than it'll handle. To show my redneck roots, here's some symbolism...if I already have a 9mm pistol, I don't want to get a .40, 10mm, or .45, then try to take it hunting cape buffalo on the Serengeti, when I really need a .416 Rigby. In other words, I don't want to limit myself too much by getting something cheaper and less capable, then wind up wanting something more. But on the other hand, I don't want to get an expensive, complicated piece of equipment that I'll never use because it's too big of a headache.

So, a couple questions about that Canon you linked to...it doesn't have a true manual focus, does it? I can't turn the lens by hand to get exactly the focus I want, right? And the burst mode says it's 1.3 fps, which seems kind of slow to me, but I don't know. There's a lot of times taking picture of Caitlyn I'd love to hit the burst mode and get 10 or 12 pictures in a row to get her looking right, but I'm thinking that getting 4 pictures in 3 seconds is not going to cut it. On the same note, what's the shutter lag going to be like? When I press the button, I want that picture NOW, not in a second or two after it's done computing flash, focus, and exposure options. Press the button, instant (or as close to instant as possible) picture taking.

I guess these are my real hangups: zoom, shutter lag, burst mode, and manual/automatic focus. I've seen a ton of shots of random, inconsequential items that look beautiful because of the focus. You know what I mean, I'm sure, CameraGuy...the flowers between the camera and the girl's face are blurry so they're not really "there," they just provide contrast. Or a piano keyboard shot lengthwise, where the keys closest to the camera are sharp but the rest are blurred...

Man, this could get expensive...

[cassidyta]

I can not speak to the specifics of the any camera model. My Wife has a Cannon that she loves. The one thing I would say is that my wife's ability to understand her camera and ability to take pictures went up greatly once she attended a photography classs. We found one through the local community college that wasn't pricey. I think it was $125 for the books and 6 classes that lasted 4 hours each.
No matter which camera you get, I would suggest something like that to capture the artisitci pics you are looking for. I am sure that trial and error will get you the same knowledge, but a calss might expedite the process.

[MississippiBoy]

Yeah, I have several friends that do photo shoots on the side, and one that was a newspaper photographer for years. I'll be asking them plenty of questions, no doubt...just thought I'd ask here first.

Oh boy...Bryce is looking at this thread now...

[nofearengineer]

Daniel,

From what you have said, I think it is fair to say that you are not one of the people who just wants to own a big, expensive-looking camera. When you talk about cool depth-of-field shots like that, you're talking about an elegant effect that can not be done well with point-and-shoot cameras.

Why? Because they don't have aperture control. IMHO, aperture is the most important camera control there is. Unlike ISO and shutter speed, the other two legs of the trinity Anthony mentioned, aperture can actually change the composition of the shot...not just how bright it is. (Shutter speed can do this too, but only on motion shots.)

And good aperture control typically only comes on SLR-type cameras.

I think you have a good outlook, as far as "don't buy cheap because you will end up wanting want more." There is no truly cheap way to get into new DSLR's. However, if you've got $600 to spend, you can get your foot in the door with quality used or "new old stock" gear. If it were me, I might look into a Nikon D70. You can still pick them up new for less than $300 (body only), which will leave you $300 for a good 50mm lens (f/1.8 or better), a bag, cleaning supplies, and a bit left over to start saving for a telephoto lens or a speed flash. (The D70 has a flash built in, so it's good in a pinch, but as with everything else in cameras, the add-on stuff is much better).




About that frame rate of 10-12 fps...yeah, that is a dream. Even my D300 will only do 6 fps, and it cost over $2,000 for just the body. I think the newer D3 (its big brother) will do 9fps. It is a $6,000 body. The D70 I mentioned above will do 3 fps.

Now, some (Anthony haha), might wonder why I didn't suggest the almost brand new Nikon D3000. Well, it is a really great camera for a beginner, plus it can be found for less than $500 with a kit lens (18-70mm). So it's actually less expensive. However, the 3000 does not have its own autofocus motor, which makes life harder with an amazing lens like the 50mm f/1.8 I mentioned above (which doesn't have its own AF motor). Every lens you buy for it would need to have a built in AF motor for autofocus to work. Still it's a good camera.

So those are my two recommendations....a D3000 for better than point-and-shoot performance, and a D70 for farther up the scale towards semi-pro photographer.

As always, the mantra is decent camera, GOOD GLASS. When you inevitably want to step up to a bigger, better camera, your lenses will go with you. Many, many semi-professional photographers carry 2-3 cameras at once, and many of them will be their first good DSLR, a D70.

As for Canons, I will leave that to Anthony, as I know very little about them. Frankly, there is too much to know about just one brand for an amateur such as myself to worry about the other brand. It really just doesn't make much sense to own both brands, as nothing interchanges.

[BigBassin144]

Daniel, I do believe the SX30 has a manual focus mode, but honestly, I rarely use the manual focus on my XSi.

1.3fps is kind of slow, but in the canon line a $1000 body will get you 5.3 fps (most of the Rebel series are 3.2-3.7fps). The Canon EOS 7D (a $1900 body) blows away most camera's in its price range with 8fps.

Bryce is correct that aperture is what is going to give you the nice blurred look (called Bokeh) The aperture is f2.7-5.8, so you should get able to get the desired effects of blurred background.

Here's a review of that SX30. It may say something in there about the lag time between pushing the button and taking the pic, but I don't know. It will definitely be slower than a DSLR, but most likely faster than what you're shooting with now. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...rShot_SX30_IS/

If you plan on doing more action type shots, a faster DSLR may be the way to go. It will just be a lot more expensive.

BB

[bamabassman]

daniel...buying a really good camera is NOT gonna make those dinks look any BIGGER PAL. jsut wanted to let you know that ok? lol.

for real guys, this is very interesting. i too am wanting to get lisa and i a new camera, i'll get her to look at this. thanks fellas.

[MississippiBoy]

Originally Posted by bamabassman

daniel...buying a really good camera is NOT gonna make those dinks look any BIGGER PAL. jsut wanted to let you know that ok? lol.

Sounds like experience talking, Mr. Dinkmaster....


Ok, I've read about ISO, shutter speed, and aperture settings and how they interact to affect photos. I still have no clue what I want...

Just to get an idea on what my money will get me, I searched on Amazon for a DSLR camera for $400-$600. I see a lot of cameras are sold as just body, and a lot come with a lens. The typical lens seems to be something in the 18-55 mm and 3.5-5.6 IS range. Is the mm measurement the focal length? And the 3.5-5.6 IS is the aperture, right?

Going on what little I know, this is a "beginner" or "jack of all trades, master of none" lens, and I'll probably be wanting something else later on to expand my capabilities. But just as an example, what about this one? Canon Rebel XS, with the lens as described above. I don't really know enough to even ask an intelligent question, so I guess I'm just looking for some options on what kind of a lens I should be looking for...

[nofearengineer]

That's not a bad deal, Daniel The "IS" (Image Stabilization) is a good thing to have. The Nikon version of that is "VR" (Vibration Reduction).

The 3.5-5.6 is the aperture range..though it is actually f/3.5-5.6. In my experience, if you take outdoor photos in bright light, that range will be fine. If you want to shoot portraits or take pictures of the kids' birthday parties, you're going to want something at f/1.8. Otherwise, you will have to jack up your ISO number or reduce your shutter speed, which is going to impact image quality.

The "mm" rating is the focal length. The higher the focal length, the larger the zoom (and the larger the lens, usually).

For what it's worth, a 50 mm lens is generally accepted as making things look as if they are being seen by the human eye. Smaller, and it's more and more "wide angle". Larger, and it's more and more "telephoto."

So even though an 18-55mm lens is technically a "wide angle zoom," it's not something you want to take long-distance shots with. A 55-200 lens would probably be your next purchase, though it will be around $500-$600. However, it might be possible to get an 18-200m lens. That would be a great walk-around lens for shooting everything. I use a Nikon 18-200mm for my everyday shooting, unless I'm indoors or shooting motionless inanimate objects (see above).

[MississippiBoy]

Ok...my brain hurts....

If 50mm is roughly human eye equivalent, then 55mm doesn't seem like it would be that much better. I've never looked at cameras and lenses in this much detail before...most P&S cameras tell you they have "8x zoom" or "3x zoom" or something. Do the SLR lenses just list the focal length, and don't really assign it a magnification number?

So, that Rebel XS I linked to before, plus this lens might be a good combination?

[BigBassin144]

Daniel, those are the exact two lenses I have. I'll shoot some shots to give you an example of size.

I know this is a lot to take, and I don't want to complicate it more... But: a 50mm focal length is considered to be about what the human eye sees on a camera with a 35mm sensor. Most entry level DSLRs have a crop sensor. Essentially, on what's called a "full frame" camera, the image sensor is the same size as 35mm film. They get smaller as you get into cheaper cameras, and some cheap P&S has sensors the size of your pinky fingernail. This isn't all that important, and what I'm getting at is in a camera with a 1.6x crop factor like the Canon Rebels, 50mm will be bigger than what the human eye sees.

Daniel, honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about what I just said, as it really isn't overly important. Bryce is right on the 18-55, with a 55-250 (the canon version of Nikon's 55-200) being your next lens. (but let me tell you, you'd never get close enough to a fox to get a picture like on the amazon page w/ a 250mm, lol). I bought mine together as one kit with my body. OR, you could go with one lens with a bigger range, like 18-200mm.

Something like this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...3_DC_Lens.html

or this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._5_5_6_IS.html

The Sigma would save you some money, and honestly, you probably won't be able to tell much of a difference in image quality unless you REALLY look for it and know what you're looking for.

I shot some pictures at my Grandma's on Christmas morning with my 18-55 and couldn't get any decent shots without the flash (and you'll learn pictures are generally better without flash). That's really when I wish I had a faster lens (a bigger aperture (smaller f/x.x number) is referred to as a faster lens). Bryce is right about needing something with a f/1.8 aperture for shooting indoor shots like that. Luckily for you, that is probably the least expensive lens you will EVER buy. It's even nicknamed the "thrifty fifty"

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...0mm_f_1_8.html

By the way, the Canon XS should be perfect for what you need it for. Quite similar to the XSi like I have.

BB

[MississippiBoy]

Ok, so my wife likes the idea of having a camera with video capability, so we went and looked at this one the other night: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...18_55mm_is_kit

Canon T1L, with the same 18-55mm lens as the XS. Add a 55-250mm lens and it should do anything I need it to, and a whole lot more...

[bamabassman]

careful daniel........your brain is gonna start hurting agian pal. lol.

for real though, i like that one too. we need something ike this. maybe if oyu guys get it, lisa will try to get one.

[Captmikestarrett]

My camera is a modified older model. I used a Brownie as a mount box and stashed a Nikon coolpix inside..



Just kidding ...about the brownie..

Capt Mike

[MississippiBoy]

Ok, a friend of mine pointed one out to me on eBay. It's a T1i with a few extra lenses, but they're not Canon lenses. I guess the seller kept the Canon lens for himself, and put two Tamron lenses and two no-name lenses. Check it out and let me know what you think about it.
Anthony, from what you've said before, I know the Tamrons aren't as good as the real Canons, and who knows about the off-brands, but I wonder if the price is good enough to make up for it a little bit...
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Canon-Rebel-...item4157cdd0a7

The same seller has a bunch more packages for sale, so if you can, look through and see if any of them catch your eye...

[nofearengineer]

I hate to be a wet blanket, but I would avoid that offer like the plague.

I know it's hard to believe, Daniel....but you do not want to buy a bunch of cheap azz lenses. You will regret it.

I would rather have 2 really good lenses than 10 mediocre ones.

Cameras come and go, but good glass is forever.

[MississippiBoy]

UPDATE (if anybody really cares):

We were dead set on getting a Canon T1i, but couldn't find one around here. Apparently Canon discontinued them. So we went to the T2i....same story. Thought about the T3i, but that was more $$$$ than we really could spend. So, we ended up getting the Nikon D3100.
Best Buy had a package deal going: get the body and the included 18-55mm lens, plus a case and this 55-200mm lens, and save a little over $200. We figured that was a pretty good deal, so we jumped on it. Only got to play around with it for an hour or so yesterday, but it seems to be just what we wanted in a camera.

[Bender]

I just got a D3100 a couple weeks ago. Greatso far but I have A LOT to learn! I'll post up sone pics when I get internet back.

[nofearengineer]

Seems like a good buy, Daniel. The reviews are good, but I do have to point out the lack of a built-in auto-focus motor. While the 18-55 you get with the kit is a decent lens, for portraits, I'd want to switch it to an f/1.8 50mm prime every day of the week, for the added sharpness. Problem is, those lenses don't have their own AF motor.

Still, welcome to the Nikon family. You too, Chris.

Suck it, Anthony.

[BigBassin144]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

Suck it, Anthony.

Yeah Yeah, but if you noticed, they SETTLED for the Nikon after the superior choices were not available.

BB

[bamabassman]

THIS THREAD IS USLESS WITH OUT PICS!! BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ge tit? take a pic of the camera? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! gues i am the only one thining this is funny huh?


yes, stir crazy already.

[keithdog]

I think your going to like that camera settup Daniel. I started out with a Nikon F100 film camera AFTER switching from Canon, hahaha. Now I'm mostly shooing my Nikon D90. I had 3 lenses already from my F100 and they all work on my D90. Thats one nice thing about Nikons, they're lenses for the most part are interchangable. It's like the Garcia vs Shimano war when Nikon and Canon guys get together, haha. I keep toying with the idea of buying the Nikkor 70-300VR zoom lens. I already have the Nikkor 80-400VR and it's a great lens, but pretty heavy and bulky for toting around all day. In case you would be interrested there is a web site you should visit that I belong to. Members post their photos based on many catagories, and there are many forum sections to read through. TONS of usefull info there and plenty of folks who want to help the beginners and the pros alike. You can even click on a tab for photos shot by a certain lens or camera body for comparrison. It's called photosig.com.

[MississippiBoy]

I'm dragging this thread back to life to ask another question....

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

While the 18-55 you get with the kit is a decent lens, for portraits, I'd want to switch it to an f/1.8 50mm prime every day of the week, for the added sharpness. Problem is, those lenses don't have their own AF motor.

Based on what you're saying, I think this would be a good lens for "around the house", everyday kind of shots...
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produc...%252F1.8G.html

f/1.8, its own autofocus motor, 50mm....sounds good to me.
Whatcha think?

[nofearengineer]

Daniel, hmmm....there's no doubting the quality of the lens you're looking at. It is kind of overkill though, as it is an FX (full-frame) lens, unlike your D3100, with is a DX sensor camera.

It's got really good optical quality, and will work fine, and yes, the built in AF motor will be just what you need.

It just makes me want to cringe that it has no aperture ring.

Any chance you can trade your D3100 in on a used D90?

(I know, I know...no video...it's all about tradeoffs.)