Stepping away from P/S and going DSLR, what do I need?

[xcmountain80]

There are 1.2 zillion guides on helping one choose a camera, hoping to save some time I figured I would ask you. Many of us take pictures of similar things and other not. I will be shooting, my family, trips, up close, and some distance but not likely enough to permit the purchase of a telephoto. I'm a Olympus guy from way back but don't see many people favoring them as much (at least on here). So say Nikon or Cannon, and does not need to be a full frame camera (it can but doesn't have to be). I've narrowed the vendor to Costco, yes the big box store, mainly because of their return policy. If for some reason I decide I do not like the camera I can return it. With that in mind which if these might best fit my needs if any? http://www.costco.com/Common/Search...Name:BC&lang=en-US&search=slr&Ntt=slr&topnav=

This is not the way I usually go about things especially equipment purchases, but I promised myself last October when my daughter was 3 mo old I'd have and know how to use a DSLR this October if for nothing else to take those pictures in the pumpkin patch. Help in determining would be greatly appreciated.


Thank you

Aaron

 

[Tucson T4R]

Do you have any interest in shooting video? I personally don't but a few of those choices have video capability which you pay more for.

The Canon Rebel EOS line has a decent rep for entry level DSLRs. Any of the one you referenced will give you decent start except that all just come with the kit lenses. That's OK for a start but once you get the bug and want to improve your end results the first thing you want to do is invest in quality lenses. High end glass gets pricey very fast.

Both Canon and Nikon are great. You just need to pick a platform and stick to it as you head down the slippery path.

Two other places to shop are Adorama and B&H Photo. Both have great prices and customer service.

 

[xcmountain80]

I thought about the video ability but have a P/S that will do that and a camcorder so really no need..... but it would be cool. Glass for cameras seems to be like glass for firearms, the glass ends up costing more than what it is mounted to.

I already want to upgrade the glass and I have no camera! But buying lenses before camera bodies is like buying tires for a truck that isn't in your driveway, you can but not recommended.

I'm assuming the lens availability for both Nikon and Canon is vast so no chance of running out of options there. I absolutely need and entry level camera, though my current P/S is pretty advanced as PS's go.


A

 

[AYIAPhoto]

I'm a Olympus guy from way back but don't see many people favoring them as much

Most of the reason to avoid 4/3 cameras like the Olympus is the crop factor. An 18-55 acts like a 27-77 on an APSC camera(Nikon/Canon/Pentax) while acting like a 36-110 on a 4/3. You quickly learn that you need to either buy much wider glass or back up a good distance for things like group shots. The advantage is you can use a smaller lens to get a longer focal length for distances. If you want to shoot wildlife without carrying around a huge 300mm lens(450 on APSC) you can use a smaller 200mm(400 equivalent) with the Oly. The other problem is lack of aftermarket lenses, Sigma makes a few but that's about it.

I will be shooting, my family, trips, up close, and some distance but not likely enough to permit the purchase of a telephoto.

For your needs any of the Nikon/Canon entry level(or what fits your budget) cameras will be fine. Don't waste money on the biggest baddest camera and leave nothing for lenses. Also, save the extra $100 you would pay for the kit lens and buy the body alone. Put that towards a faster(lower F-stop) lens such as the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8-4.5. A good 30-35mm prime, and a macro lens added later should cover all of your needs.

 

[nwoods]

I'm going to key into a couple of things you've said, and some others you haven't but I think are implied.

You're probably the kind of guy looking at photos you see posted here on ExPo, or in OJ and similar, and thinking, Wow, those images look so much better than mine, and they all shoot dSLR's, so..... Well, you are right. You really will get better shots with a dSLR. It won't make you take better shots than you do now, but some of the things you have noticed will be there in the images you will begin to take.

First off, for the types of environments most of the guys around here shoot, a weather sealed camera is pretty important. Dust is a killer. The better quality lenses are sealed. They are also built like tanks. They are heavy and bulky, but they work in nearly every environment you can think of. dSLR's are very fast. You can turn them on instantly. Batteries last for thousands of shots. The shutter rate is great, and you can get your daughters priceless expression the first time, because the camera is as fast as you are. They tend to be sharper, because there are fewer compromises in the lenses. The better the glass, the better the image. The camera itself has very little do with image quality. That's an overstatement, but when you are shopping for your first setup, it's pretty accurate. Whatever camera you buy now is basically disposable, but the glass you will keep a long, long time. Buy a cheap camera, but buy expensive glass and you will be happy. Reverse that equation and you will not be happy. These are all good and prudent reasons to get a dSLR. Even the best PNS (like a G10) will let you down because they are not as fast, the batteries are not as long lasting, and the turn on action of cycling the lens will drive you nuts out in the dust and dirt, pumping debris into the camera with every cycle.

I actually suggest buying a used dSLR first, and getting a hang of it. It's sort of like gold. Easy to do, but hard to do well. dSLR's have "easy mode" features that will be fine for starters, then they can grow with you when you get bold enough to turn the dial to Aperture mode! I am unfamiliar with the current Nikon lineup, but they are all very good. In the Cannon lineup, I'd suggest the 20D/30D/40D/50D range. The higher the number, the better (the current 60D is pretty sweet, but pricey). You can get used 20D's for $500, and it's what I use to shoot all the images here.

The Cannon line up also has a wide range of lenses. the best ones are dubbed "L" lenses, and have a trademark red ring around them. They are well built, solid, durable, sealed, accurate, and typically very very sharp lenses. The lower the aperture number (F number) the more expensive, and versatile, the lens will be. If you buy nothing but F2.8's, you will be very happy...and poor The mid range lenses are EF-S lenses, known by the white dot at the mounting ring. These are mid-grade, well built, fairly sharp lenses, that offer a lot of performance for the dollar. The EF-S lenses only mount to the Rebel and the 20D-60D bodies (and maybe the 7D, I'm not sure), but these same bodies can also run all the L's and regular EF lenses. They are really good quality mid-range cameras.

Another nice thing about dSLR's is that your success rate in "keepers" will go up quite a bit, because you will be taking a LOT more shots, and, with the other beneficial aspects, you are going to like the shots you take. Another aspect that a lot of people transitioning to dSLR overlook is the backend costs. You are going to be taking a LOT more images, which means you are going to need software to cull through them all. You are also going to want software that can help with the post-processing (sharpening, balancing, cropping, fixing, etc...). To do this well, you will want a nice monitor, a fairly power computer, and fast, capacious hard drives to store everything. These backend costs are not inconsequential, and should definitely be considered as part of the package.

Here is a shot I took with a borrowed re-built $400 Canon 30D, and my favorite 16-35mm F2.8 L MkII lens: The lens cost 2x what the camera, maybe even more than that, but it works!

 

[nwoods]

Delete you over post and size down that photo please.

Sorry, having ISP problems. Message timed out in upload. I deleted the first one. As for photo resize, it's only 1280px and under 600kb. I think the moderately large size helps prove the point: Any old body can do the job if you have a decent lens.

 

[ywen]

Micro 4/3 format is an excellent alternative to the typical DSLRs. I own a full set of Canon cameras + lenses for my photo business. Prior to purchasing my m4/3 camera, I would take my Canon gear on trips. I realized that is only good for the trips where the main objective is photography. The bulk simply got in the way too much, and I always felt nervous leaving $10K worth of gear in the car ( was really fun when I rented a Wrangler w/o tinted windows ). Image quality wise, 4/3 has the advantage over other DSLRs in superior lens performance. For much less cost, you get a body+lens system that resolves higher resolution, given similar MP sensor. Yes, even better corner performance than expensive Canon L lenses.

Crop factor is only an issue when you use the m4/3 camera with lenses made for other sensor formats, since you won't find a 7-14 lens there. If you're going to stick with native mount, Olympus + Panasonic have some ultra wides that will cover your needs on the wide spectrum. Check out this guy's excellent landscape work with the GF1.

http://starvingphotographer.com/blog/tag/panasonic-gf-1

If you're just a casual video shooter, any of the GF1, Olympus EPs... are sufficient. If you are more serious about video, you need to get the Panasonic GH1 (or GH2 coming out soon)

 

[haven]

The Palm Beach FL area has several camera clubs. I'd recommend joining at least one club. You'll find club members who are eager to share their knowledge. You also will find members who will let you try out their lenses and camera bodies (within reason, of course). Just take a couple of Compactflash and SDHC cards to the meeting to capture your experiments.

I agree with the notion of buying used gear at first. You'll be able to purchase 2 or 3 year old equipment for a lot less than today's new cameras. The camera club members will be able to tell you which shops in the area have used equipment for sale.

 

[xcmountain80]

Wow, I should check in more often.

Video is not a must as I have a point and shoot and a cam corder to cover those areas, if the even arose where professional level videography was need I have an aunt in the biz for that.

Used equipment is fine but can both be used, lens and body? Is it like a car or unlike a car where if the outside looks good the rest should be ok?

I was thinking a Canon 20D ($300) with a Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8 ($400)
are there different types of Sigma lenses that make one more sturdy or durable than the other?)

or

Olympus E620 ($?) with something,

are lenses cross platform compatible, I've seen a gazillion adpaters which makes me think yes but shy away because just because an adapter is made doesn't mean you should use it if the lens was designed for a particular camera.

The Olympus Pen cameras have come up in searches but seem to lack aftermarket support in lenses and they are somewhat expensive for not a whole bunch of bang (I think).

The information flowing is is fantastic as it help me form a better opinion and cuts through marketing hype and or crap that someone else might try and push.

A

 

[ywen]

The olympus pen or any other m4/3 cameras is compatible with a wide range of lenses much more so than canon or nikon. You will only get auto focus with m4/3 lenses though.


Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

 

[ywen]

Nope you will get it with regular 4/3's lenses, just buy the MMF-2 adaptor and keep your auto focus

Right.. I meant to say only the dedicated 4/3 and m4/3 with the pins will let you do AF.

 

[Lost Canadian]

If it were me I'd stick to Nikon or Canon. That's not to say Oly, Sony, or Pentax make bad cameras, just that Canon and Nikon are always the perennial front runners when it comes to technology. Like others have mentioned once you get into a system you get into it for glass, not the bodies. Canon and Nikon both offer a huge selection of exceptional lenses from fisheye, to tiltshift, to mega telephoto etc. You certainly have no shortage of selection when it comes to the big two that's for sure. In addition, once you have the glass, body upgrades become more bearable, not to mention the technology trickle down keeps even Nikon and Canon's mid and lower end models at par with, or in some cases, even ahead of what the others offer on their top end models.

Now if you're in it just for stills, Nikon is tough to beat at this point. Most of their lens releases of late have been nothing short of spectacular, 14-24 anyone, and according to the DxO Mark's sensor ratings, Nikon's sensors in terms of image quality are right at the very top for both full frame and crop. Nikon also sports their increadible full RGB matrix metering system, along with things like their 51 point 3D autofocus system on models like the D300s and up. Spec for spec Nikon is very tough to beat when it comes to pure still photography.

Canon on the other hand, who also do still photography exceptionally well, beat Nikon into the ground when it comes to video implementation. The 7D and 5D II are simply remarkable cameras when you consider how well they can do not only stills but broadcast grade HD video. If video is a consideration or even a possibility in the near future, Canon is arguably better choice at this point.

The other thing with Nikon and Canon is you have piece of mind that you're invested in a system that is at the top of the technological ladder, and that both companies are on solid ground in terms of where they are heading. Pentax has been struggling to stay afloat for some time financially, there's talk that Olympus is thinking of moving away from traditional DSLR's in order to focus on the new hybrid systems. The very modest upgrade of their top of the line E5 certainly didn't do much to quell the rumors that Oly is finding it hard to compete on the increasingly more competitive DSLR front. The only other real company to consider IMO would be Sony but at this point, while I like what I see with the A850 and A900, Sony still seems to be a bit of sleeping giant. They have everything they need to be competitive with Nikon and Canon but they just don't seem to have a clear vision as to where they want to go as an imaging company. They are all over the place with their DSLR's as well as their new hybrid NEX cameras, and they are now losing ground to others in terms of market share because of it. I would look at Sony if I was starting over but at this point anyway I think they would still fall behind Canon and Nikon with me.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Just my opinion, but I still stand by it. The E5 is Oly's newest best of the best and yet if you matched it against the Nikon D7000, D300s, Canon's 5D II or 7D I think you'd find that it's in some very tough company. Having only an 11 point AF isn't really all that exciting, the high ISO performance is still lacking compared to any of the above, 12 bit RAW, and only 720P video? I'm sure it's a great camera but I'm not seeing how it edges anything away from Nikon or Canon. Again it's just my opinion.

 

[ywen]

Talking about technological front runners?

In the arena of mirror-less large sensor camera, m4/3 is the most advanced technology up to date. Canon and Nikon are rumored to be producing their versions of EVIL cameras to tap into this market.

If the you buy into the idea of the compact m4/3 format, nothing from Canon/Nikon is equivalent.

 

[Lost Canadian]

I have one of these:

and 'had' one of these for a very short while:

They are entirely different beasts and really can't be compared. Aaron asked for our opinions on DSLR's, and before this turns into some kind of fan boy flame war let me step back a little and state that there really are no bad choices, only choices that suit different needs differently. I'd suggest Aaron figure out what kind of photography he thinks he'll likely do and pick a system that best matches those needs. Nothing more really needs to be debated IMO.