I think I decided on a DSLR...advice?

[ChuckB]

Well, after reading a ton of reviews based on recommendations from this website and following links to other reviews, I believe I found the DSLR that I want.

First a little background on me... I have virtually no photographic experience other than point & shoot. I have been inspired by the plethora of amazing pictures on this website and would like to start a new hobby. I have no brand loyalty to either Canon or Nikon. After reading many posts here, I think the best route for me to follow is the "buy a cheap body and spend money on the glass" philosophy that many people preach on EXPO. This will allow me to get my feet wet without spending too much $$$$.

To that end, my first choice right now is the Nikon D80. So far I have found it for sale with an 18-135mm lens and a 1GB SD card for $1299.

Am I on the right track here???:088:

 

[bigreen505]

I have no experience with the lower end Nikon's so I speak only in generalities.

Card first. You need more than one. If you think 1GB is enough then buy two 512 cards. But if one starts acting up, you want a second. www.mydigitaldiscount.com has some good deals on cards.

If you need a camera now, the D80 is probably a nice place to start. If you are starting from scratch and willing to take the road less traveled, I would give the new Pentax cameras a hard look. Pentax has worked very hard on them and they seem to be well thoughtout. Also, Pentax makes excellent lenses overall.

If you go with the Nikon, I personally would want a nicer lens than the 18-135. It will get the job done and will cover most of your needs, but there is definitely nicer glass available. Look used.

 

[rgsiii]

I have a pretty large Canon digital SLR selection and Canon lenses with focal lengths from 17 to 600mm.

Having said that, on my non photographic trips, I have had a tendency to use a high end digital non SLR. It is so convenient size wise. It is not as good as the SLR's, however it is always at hand. Its biggest failing is due to the shutter lag.

You might want to play with (using B&H's terminology) an advanced digital camera and see how you like it. Basically something that allows you to control things and adjust focal lengths. Try to get it in the same memory card/battery type as the prospective SLR. With it, you can see what focal lengths you like (remember that most current digital SLR's have a multiplication factor), play with soft ware and have a potential back up.

Unless you are also carrying a computer or some sort of storage device, get multiple cards and more than you think you could possibly need. It is difficult to edit off of the LCD screen of the camera. Extra batteries are a must.

 

[bigreen505]

rsg111 brings up great points, all of them. Interestingly for me, after being totally film free for about three or four years I seem to be shooting a lot of film again and will probably be giving a talk in Denver sometime soonish about making your digital images look more like film (not sure why, but that is what they wanted).

There are several "image tank" type devices ranging in price from about $150-$600 that you can download your cards to when away from a computer. Know what the minimum expected battery life is for your camera and make sure you have enough batteries to cover your needs. Also, have someone show you how to clean your image sensor. That is a whole mess of issues that you don't really have to worry about shooting film.

 

[paulj]

My Pentax SD dslr with kit lens was in the $600 range last year. It fits my needs well enough that I haven't kept up with new models and prices. So my comments may be a bit dated. But some of things I like about it are:

- it is smaller than many of the other dslrs.
- it carries easily, both in hand and around my neck. I have added a short wrist strap, and use a neoprene neck strap and case (Op/tech brand)
- it takes a polarizing lens (a big plus compared to the P&S that I have)
- it can use a wide range of older Pentax lens, including the fixed length ones that I bought years ago with a purely manual Pentax film camera. Perhaps the biggest advantage of these lens is the wider aperature (compared to the kit zoom). However changing lens is something of a bother when hiking, and increases the chance of a dirty sensor.
- another big advantage of a dslr over a p&s is better low light capability. My p&s has a base asa of 50. The dslr starts at 200, and can go up to 3200.
- 6mp is proving enough for me. It is fine for 8x10s of selected shots. Greater MP would mean larger files, and I am already experiencing a space crunch on my hard drives.
- I have shot some stuff in RAW, but haven't had time to convert most of those images.

paulj

 

[ChuckB]

First of all thanks for all the replies... this is proving to be a harder decision than I orginally thought.

I should note that my current Point&shoot is an Olympus Stylus 410 (4 mp) and in my inexperienced mind its is a great little camera. I don't find it so much lacking in resolution as I do in zoom, i think its 3x optical...

At the risk of showing my ignorance on this topic I have a few more questions and comments.

What is the definition of a full frame camera? I have read that a lot and have not been able to determine exactly what it means. Is that the difference between say a Canon 30D and Rebel XTi or a Nikon D80 and D70/50? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

As far as lenses go, I would like to be able to buy a DSLR that can use 35mm as well as digital only lenses. This will obviously open up a much larger selection of "glass". I know that some of the DSLRs have digital only glass. I would be willing to spend a little bit more on the body to have this flexibility. Does this tie into the full frame camera bodies some how?

TIA for all you help :beer: :beer:

 

[paulj]

The ability to use older (film type) lens on a DSLR depends, to a large extent, on the lens mounting system.

For example my old lens have a treaded mount. My DSLR has a Pentax bayonet mount, however it is fairly easy to find an adapter ring that screws on to the lens to turn it into a bayonet mount. My old lens are also purely manual - focus and apperature. But the DSLR can be set to allow these manual functions.

Another potential difference between a film SLR and DSLR is sensor size. On mine the sensor size is about 2/3 that of a 35mm film frame. A lens designed for 35mm may still work with the smaller frame, but the effective focal length of the lens changes. Thus my old 55mm lens, which gives 'normal' size images on the 35mm camera, becomes a mild telephoto lens on the DSLR, behaving much like a 80mm lens would on a 35mm. 18mm is a very wide lens in 35mm, but only a moderate wide angle on the dslr.

Keep in mind that the larger the sensor size, the longer the lens has to be to get the equivalent 'zoom'. My little 43WR P&S at 3x zoom (15mm focal length) has a narrower field of view than the 55mm zoom end on my dslr. The other big variable in lens size is apperature. And the bigger the lens, the more you will need a tripod to hold the lens and camera steady.

paulj

 

[bigreen505]

In the DSLR world, full frame means the sensor is the same size as a piece of 35 mm film, i.e. 24 mm x 36 mm. There are only three cameras that fit that and they are the Canon 1Ds, 1Ds mkII and 5D. A new 5D will cost about $3,000 and a 1DsII is about $7,500.

Film lenses vs. digital lenses has more to do with the image circle of the lens. Many lenses are only designed to cover the 15x24 mm chip on many DLSRs so you can't use them on film. Any reasonably quality film lens is fine on a digital camera.

When you move from the low end cameras to mid level cameras you get a faster, easier to use camera, generally better metering and autofocus, nicer viewfinder, higher resolution and increased durability. In most cases that comes with increased weight and increased size too.

I believe the Pentax that I alluded to above is the K10D. One advantage of sticking with Nikon or Canon is the ability to easily rent lenses for special occasions, like a 500 f4 when you know you will have the opportunity to shoot wildlife pictures.

Based on your question, I think you are spending too much time reading Internet forums. Go to your local camera store and try them out. The biggest difference in the cameras you are looking at is user interface. Any of them can take an acceptable picture capable of printing at 8x10. Go play with them and see which one you enjoy using the most as that is the one that will give you the best images.

If you are honestly considering a full frame Canon (I'm guessing you are just asking what that means), it is also worth looking at the Nikon D200 and D2xs, and Leica R9/DMR as well, though that is really a whole other kettle of fish. A camera is only as good as the lens you put in front of it so spend your money on good lenses, especially since new bodies come out every few months. If you are just planning to use the kit zoom lens that is packaged with some cameras, you will probably be much happier and get better pictures from a high-end point and shoot.

 

[paulj]

Something which may catch you off guard when you first use a DSLR, is that the sensor and lcd screen are not active until you shoot the picture. With a P&S you may be used to composing the image, and even judging exposure and color balance, by looking at the LCD before pressing the shutter button. You may only use the viewfinder when it is too bright to use the screen.

But with a dslr the mirror blocks the light path to the sensor, instead directing it to the view finder. The view finder will also display information like speed and f stop, but what you see is an optical image, not a digital one. Fortunately on most dslrs the area that you see in the viewfinder is close to what the image will cover - still a bit smaller, but much better than on most P&S. During this time the lcd screen will be blank, or just showing textual information.

After you shoot the picture, you can view it on the screen, and judge whether to delete or reshoot with adjustment.

One advantage of this reduced use of the sensor and screen is better battery life. Most use proprietary rechargable lithium batteries with good life, but on a long trip you want to give thought to recharging options. My Pentax uses 4 AA batteries or 2 CR3V lithiums. So it can use the rechargable metal hydride AAs, but mostly I use AA size lithiums. They are light, not too expensive when bought in bulk (COSTCO, Sams), and allow me to fill a couple of gigs of memory per set. And I can carry as many replacements as I think I may need.

paulj

p.s. A dslr probably won't have movie and sound capabilites. On the other hand, the lag time between shutter press and actually taking the picture is usually shorter with dslr. Thus for action shots it is likely to be much better.

 

[ChuckB]

Wow, you guys are great! Thanks for all that info:bowdown:

I'm definitely not going down the full frame road, those are way too expensive and way out of my league as far as ability. I think I have been spending to much time in internet forums... this one excluded of course :sombrero:

I think I'm going to focus in on the Rebel XTi and Nikon D80, but I'm going to look at a few cameras tomorrow and see if I can look at a Pentax. I'll let you know what I see. Thanks again.

 

[jeffryscott]

You may seriously want to consider something like the Canon S3 (or is it S4) IS ... 10x optical zoom, maybe more now (I have the S1) and great quality for not a lot of money. The all-in-one design is convenient, you don't have to change lenses and it is a good entree' into the digital world of longer glass.

Many people will buy an SLR and never really take advantage of buying good glass for it and find the inconvenience of changing lenses a bit more than they bargained for (also, with DSLR's, changing the lenses opens the camera sensor up to dust).

It really depends on what you want to do with the camera - if all you are looking for is a longer zoom range then the Canon, or Olympus makes a nice one, point-and-shoot make very good images.

I have two, big, heavy DSLR's I use for work with great glass at my disposal, but I often only take my little Canon with me on trips.

Good luck,

Jeff

 

[ChuckB]

That is good advice. I'm trying not to rush into this decision and definitely need to take a step back and really think about want vs. need. :violent-smiley-031:

 

[nhblacksmith]

You can pick up either a Nikon D1 or D1H pretty reasonable these days. They are 2.87 MP but because of Nikon's method of interpreting the sensor information, they will produce really nice results even at 11 x 17. These are both full-featured professional DSLR's and will use all of Nikon's lenses. Even the old manual focus AI lenses will meter but you must use manual mode instead of shutter or aperture priority. There are a number of nice older lenses that can be had pretty cheap and will work fine with these cameras. Nikon's backwards compatibility means you can buy older high quality glass for pretty reasonable prices. Remember that any lens will have a 50% increase in focal length because of sensor cropping (example, a 50 mm lens on a film camera become a 75 mm on a Nikon digital). Great feature for wildlife but somewhat limiting for wide angle work. The D1H will shoot at nearly 5 frames per second with a 40 frame buffer. It is amazing for stopping action. I've taken pictures folks jumping into a local swimming hole from 30' up and had 5-6 in-focus shots before they hit the water.

If you decide to go this route, try for a D1H because they have on-screen menus instead of having to carry a cheat sheet and dial custom settings in. The D1H also has a little better color than the original D1. Both of these are built like a tank. You should be able to pick up a nice used D1H for under $500. I have owned a D1 (gave to my daughter) and now have a D1H and a D1X. The D1X is a great camera but a lot more money, even used.

Lots of things to think about...Good luck.

Neal

 

[jeffryscott]

Everybody has opinions, and I have to offer mine on the D1, D1H. (Qualifier: My use is not typical since I work at a newspaper.)

Unless you have a whole pile of Nikon lenses you can't part with and just want to "play" with digital and got a killer deal on the D1/D1H, Don't do it. And if you do have lenses (which you have said you don't) the D80 would give much better results than the D1/D1H.

We have a pile of these things at work (have switched to Canon over the last year) and universally among the newspaper staff the D1 and D1H were despised. Very poor at high ISO, very unreliable after a year or so of use (and it is likely most D1 or D1H's you would find used have been "used" since they are a professional grade camera.) And probably the biggest drawback is battery life. At least here in the SW the batteries do not last and are expensive to replace. We have seen photographers from other papers that carry 6 to 8 batteries and two chargers for one basketball game, whereas with the Canon we can go nearly a week on one battery.

And, lastly, having used the D1/D1H and my Canon point and shoots, the picture quality from the Canon is generally better.

Basically, with digital you are buying a computer. As rapidly as the advances are made, if you buy a dated piece of equipment, the new stuff is faster, cheaper, better. A $300 camera today will generally give better results than a $600 of three years ago. (My company's first digital camera was over $20,000 about 10 years ago.)

Not trying to bash anybody's choices, just have to throw out my observations from the real world where the cameras are used in a variety of situations, lighting, etc ...

 

[ChuckB]

I appreciate all the advice! At this point I am still looking. I was able to play around with a friend's Rebel XT (the original model) and it was pretty neat. I think that it would probably suit my needs. However, I haven't pulled the trigger on anything yet. I'm doing some more looking at the new Pentax and Sony...