First DSLR

[Chrsnwk]

Ok... here's the deal....

I know every brand has a loyal following, and I hope to become a loyal fan of "Brand X" very soon.

I want a DSLR camera. I know I'm buying into a system, and that each band will have something newer and better on the market before I get my new (obsolete) camera home for the first time. I know I'll probably be buying a new body for my system in a few years.

I've read review after review of the offerings of Canon, Nikon, and Olympus that are even close to my budget. I've gone into local camera stores and talked to the sales people and handled several different models.

I enjoy taking pictures of people, places, and things. I am a diver and currently have an underwater housing for my point and shoot camera. I know eventually I'll want one for the DSLR too. I also know that I'll be buying multiple lenses for different reasons, as there is no "one size fits all." I'm going to want something that will zoom to take picture of stuff far away, and I'm going to want one that is really wide for underwater. I'll probably want a macro lens too. I have zero aspirations of ever being a "professional" photographer, or getting paid for my work. If I can win a prize someday in a contest, that's a bonus, but it's not a goal. My photographs will be for my enjoyment alone, or for sharing experiences with friends and family.

In my studies, I can't get a common answer from 2 people about any question I ask about a feature of X vs a competing feature of Y. I've concluded that I'm likely to be happy with my new camera regardless of whether it's a Canon, Nikon or Olympus.

I have a brand/model in my head that is the current front runner for my choice, and all I'll say is that it's not the least, nor most expensive of the product line. I don't want a recommendation for a D60 vs a D40, or an E420 Vs and E30, or an XSi vs Xti. I want to know why you think one's brand characteristics should drive my decision.

I'm hoping this last round of discussion/recommendation will quiet the voices in my head that my fist choice might not be the best.

ok... now that i've introduced the topic, my specific questions...

Image stabilization... in body, or in lens? WHY?

How important is it really to have more than 6 Megapixles?

How important is it to be able fit a lens made for a film camera onto my new DSLR, if I don't actually own any lenses yet?

How important is it that most or all of the lens elements are glass rather than plastic?

Have you ever taken a DSLR underwater, and what sort of housing/strobes/etc did you use?

CF or SD memory?

How many autofocus points do you really need, let alone actually use?

Are there any other really important differences between one brand or another? (I'm sure there are)

I'm new at this and would love to be told what other questions I should be asking. Feel free to answer my questions as if the only camera I ever used was a Polaroid that I last used in 1984.

let the discussion begin....

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Image Stabilization- in body or in lens
In lens stabilization is more effective than in body stabilization. In body stabilization only has to be bought once (with the camera), but how many lenses do you really need image stabilization with anyway? The lenses with an effective rage beyond 150mm would be helpful. With shorter lenses, it isn't really a big deal. How many lenses longer than 150mm will you have? If you are really into birding maybe a few...but they are so expensive, $5000 for one lens perhaps, that image stabilization becomes an insignificant price difference. Once the lenses get so big...image stabilization stops being practical because you would never use the lens without a tripod. I don't see anyone ever holding a Canon 800mm f/5.6 in one hand, working the shutter button with the other, and making National Geographic photos. Does it have IS? Yes....is it practical....no....

IS is only practical in a certain mm range. Greater than or equal to 150mm and less than or equal to 500mm I would guess. If you are shooting at less than 150mm or more than 500mm, I wouldn't even want IS.

How important is it really to have more than 6 Megapixles?
How badly do you want to "zoom in" (crop) after the fact? There is your answer.


How important is it to be able fit a lens made for a film camera onto my new DSLR, if I don't actually own any lenses yet?
Nill

How important is it that most or all of the lens elements are glass rather than plastic?
If you could have a reef tank made of 13 pieces of starfire glass, 13 pieces of Plexiglas, or a mix of the two, which would you choose? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and a lens is only as good as its worst piece of glass.

Have you ever taken a DSLR underwater, and what sort of housing/strobes/etc did you use?
I have, but not my own. I think "Sea&Sea" makes some of the best stuff out there. I don't have my own housing yet though.

CF or SD memory?
I prefer CF memory but SD is quickly catching up to the point that it doesn't really matter anymore.

How many auto focus points do you really need, let alone actually use?
I have and use 9, but if I had 45 I would use them all. Another thing to consider is the quality of those auto focus points. Every lens I own is at least f/2.8. Having a f/2.8 or faster lens grants you an automatic auto focus bonus on certain auto focus points.

If you are auto focusing, not having enough auto focus points forces you to shoot at possibly undesirable and mundane angles. Having a lot of focus points is a good thing, having a respectable amount of high quality focus points (if you have fast lenses) is a great thing.

Are there any other really important differences between one brand or another? (I'm sure there are)
They way I see it right now:
Canon: Best lenses in the business. Higher quality let alone a better price. This is why Canon dominates the sports field.
Nikon: Best flash in the business. This is why Nikon has the upper hand in the studio portraiture field.
Olympus: Cheap cheap cheap. The 3/4 system allows for more elbow room for the dollar. The penalty is that no mater how many dollars you spend, the level of quality won't match Canon or Nikon.

 

[dendronepthya]

@ Chrsnwk - I'll take a shot at some of your questions.

Image stabilization... in body, or in lens? WHY?
There are definitely plusses and minuses to both methods of IS. The obvious benefit of in-body IS is you don't have to follow camera rumor boards for years hoping the next big camera show will finally announce IS on your favorite non-IS lens. The problem with IS in the body is it might not be quite as effective as in-lens IS. The IS system has to take into account the focal length of the lens being used because a little bit of shake at 100mm is not a huge deal while a little bit of shake at 600mm is a disaster. I don't know if many in-body IS systems do a good job of this.

How important is it really to have more than 6 Megapixles?

Depends on your needs really. Do you print big pictures? I never print anything, so 800x600 is about all I need. Do you take a picture and throw away 90% of the pixels to get a tiny crop? If so then you may want to get some more megapixels.

How important is it to be able fit a lens made for a film camera onto my new DSLR, if I don't actually own any lenses yet?

For me, not important.

How important is it that most or all of the lens elements are glass rather than plastic?

I didn't even realize that there were plastic elements. I assumed all the stuff in my camera lens was glass.

Have you ever taken a DSLR underwater, and what sort of housing/strobes/etc did you use?

Sorry, no help here.

CF or SD memory?

I use CF. Some cameras use both. I don't have a strong opinion either way.

How many autofocus points do you really need, let alone actually use?

I shoot sometimes at f/1.4 so I tend to use single point. If I was doing what you want to do and take pictures of fast moving stuff, I'd personally want a professional 50+ AF system like what the Nikon D3, Nikon D700, and Canon 1D has.

@TitusvileSurfer
I think IS on really long lenses is to make up for any little vibration while on a tripod. That's what I heard anyway. I don't shoot much telephoto.

 

[dendronepthya]

Oh and I would not worry a lot about your camera being obsolete. My mom took this picture with my old camera, a 6MP DSLR that has a street price under $200.

 

[twilson]

Go with Nikon. YOU will not be disappointed.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Go with Nikon. YOU might give Canon something to compete against. This directly translates into better technology and lower prices for ME!

 

[Recty]

Canon products already seem to be about 15% cheaper than Nikon

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Aint' it the truth

 

[Rhizo]

I was in the same place a few weeks back. It came down to Canon 40D/50D, Olympus E-30, and Pentax K10D/K20D.

I neglected Nikon as looking closely the lenses do seem to be a bit more expensive. IME pictures most of the time came out too saturated for my taste.(easily PS fixable) I had a D40x and decided it was time to move on after I dropped it.

Olympus I liked that their crop factor is 2x.(bad if you like landscapes) More zoom for less $$$. The lens quality is among the best. The Zuiko series was built specifically for the 4/3rd sensor.

Canon simply has no doubt on being top notch. The 40D was a recommendation from Titus.(he owns one) Took a look at both cameras and they were just too big for my hands.

Pentax came up from a review iceman did.(i can link it if you want) I went out and got my hands on the cameras. They just felt right. Besides the actual touch I like how they weather seal the body. You can also use any of lenses they made from way back in the 50s/60s up to modern lenses.

Take your time on picking. Any of these companies offer quality products. Happy shooting

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

I hold a lot of respect for Pentax and love the color they produce!

 

[IPT]

I am a Canon guy. That being said Rhizo makes an excellent point. Get the camera in your hands. The location of the controls, contours, and overall size will have a big impact on your decision. Really most manufactures make a good camera these days.

 

[Chrsnwk]

Thanks to all of you that have taken the time to respond over the last couple days. I have gotten my hands on some of the cameras, and fiddled with them in the store, but there is only so much you can do standing at the sales counter. I think i'm going to inquire at the local shop(s) and see if it's possible to rent one for a weekend or something, just to get a real feel for what it's like to shoot. I think work has a Canon Digital Rebel that's a few years old i could probably borrow and play with for a weekend. Do the various makers keep the "feel" of the cameras the same across their product line, as in control placement etc that this might be a useful exercise since i probably won't find the exact model i want to rent?

Keep the advice coming ... this is all very valuable to me.

I hadn't considered Pentax... will look into it.

 

[xtm]

Re: First DSLR


I know every brand has a loyal following, and I hope to become a loyal fan of "Brand X" very soon.

Hello there.. Nikon shooter here.

I want a DSLR camera.

Excellent! Let's get started.

I've read review after review of the offerings of Canon, Nikon, and Olympus that are even close to my budget. I've gone into local camera stores and talked to the sales people and handled several different models.

Good start!

I enjoy taking pictures of people, places, and things. I am a diver and currently have an underwater housing for my point and shoot camera. I know eventually I'll want one for the DSLR too.

Most acrylic housings are much more expensive than the camera body themselves (the ones for DSLR's are)


I also know that I'll be buying multiple lenses for different reasons, as there is no "one size fits all." I'm going to want something that will zoom to take picture of stuff far away, and I'm going to want one that is really wide for underwater.

Nikon has an "all-in-one" lens, called the 18-200mm VR ED-IF DX 3.5-5.6 AF-S Zoom-Nikkor (whew!) It's a good lens for travel photography especially if you want to pack light on diving trips. The 11x zoom range naturally has compromises when it comes to image quality, but you can't beat its versatility!


I'll probably want a macro lens too.

Nikon, Tammy, Siggy, Tokie, and Canon all have em. Pick one.


I have zero aspirations of ever being a "professional" photographer, or getting paid for my work. If I can win a prize someday in a contest, that's a bonus, but it's not a goal. My photographs will be for my enjoyment alone, or for sharing experiences with friends and family.

Understood. About 80% of us shoot just for fun, and because we love making photos!


In my studies, I can't get a common answer from 2 people about any question I ask about a feature of X vs a competing feature of Y. I've concluded that I'm likely to be happy with my new camera regardless of whether it's a Canon, Nikon or Olympus.

You won't be happy with a Holga :lol:


I have a brand/model in my head that is the current front runner for my choice, and all I'll say is that it's not the least, nor most expensive of the product line. I don't want a recommendation for a D60 vs a D40, or an E420 Vs and E30, or an XSi vs Xti. I want to know why you think one's brand characteristics should drive my decision.

Bring it!


I'm hoping this last round of discussion/recommendation will quiet the voices in my head that my fist choice might not be the best.

Ask it already!


ok... now that i've introduced the topic, my specific questions...

Image stabilization... in body, or in lens? WHY?

IN MY OPINION, I want it in the lens. Why? Because if all of a sudden my image stabilization in the camera stopped working, I would have to send the body back to the manufacturer for repair and I'll be out of a camera for a while. If it's in the lens, I can just send that lens for repair and (hopefully) still have my other lens that I can use. No downtime.


How important is it really to have more than 6 Megapixles?


Do you print posters? You can have gorgeous 8 x 11 prints with just 6MP.


How important is it to be able fit a lens made for a film camera onto my new DSLR, if I don't actually own any lenses yet?

Good question. The answer to that is It depends on whether or not you will be using a full-frame digital in the future. Right now, the only full-frame "FX" Nikon bodies are D700, D3, and D3X. These bodies are in the $3K and up. Everything else uses a "DX" (APS-C) sized sensor. IN MY OPINION it is NOT important to be able to fit an older film camera lens into a newer digital body... because:

1. While older lenses are good, the newer ones have more technologically advanced features that the old ones don't have... Nano-coating, VR, etc to name a few.

2. Lenses for 35mm can fit both DX and FX format... they are usually MORE expensive than the DX (APS-C) lenses. If you don't shoot FX, why bother? There are way more selection for DX lenses than their FX counterparts. Answer: NOT IMPORTANT.


Have you ever taken a DSLR underwater, and what sort of housing/strobes/etc did you use?

P&S, yes... DSLR... nope, not yet.


CF or SD memory?

I'm a big fan of CF as they are very rugged. Sandisk Extreme IV for me. SD's are too flimsy IMO.


How many autofocus points do you really need, let alone actually use?

My D300 has 51 AF points.. yes, fifty-one. I use all of them.... and... it's wickedly fast! I think you'll be happy with 9 or 11.


Are there any other really important differences between one brand or another? (I'm sure there are)

When was the last time you looked at a great picture and said "wow this thing must be shot with a Canon!!".. ? Never. Case in point: Use what feels good in your hand. Would you buy an Elos tank even if it doesn't fit your Vlamingii tang? But hey, everybody's got an Elos!


I'm new at this and would love to be told what other questions I should be asking. Feel free to answer my questions as if the only camera I ever used was a Polaroid that I last used in 1984.

No I think you asked some really good questions. However you need to be more specific.... what's your budget? what do you primarily shoot? Are you a travel kind of guy or a studio type of guy? Do you print a lot? You know, these type of stuff..

One thing you need to know... back in the day, I took my Nikon FM, shoot, and drop off the film at the store. There are PROS who process my films for me and the prints always come out great. Today, I am expected to be the photographer and photo lab tech. lol. The other day I was trying out this software called Lightroom and it's got to be the most confusing garbled thing I've seen, lol. You have this catalog thing and you have your RAW files.. and.... then you have the Finder screen and then there's Aperture and Photoshop.. I don't know what to use anymore.

I guess my point is.... choosing the camera is only half the battle these days. There's this beast called "post processing" that you still have to worry about. I'm still learning it myself. It's not easy!

good luck.

 

[tyoberg]

I'd buy an older 5-6MP body and save the real $$$ for lenses.

 

[TWallace]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14747365#post14747365 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tyoberg
I'd buy an older 5-6MP body and save the real $$$ for lenses.

I agree, especially since he said he's likely to want to upgrade in a year or so. Look at Craigslist once you decide what camera brand you want to get. I got my Nikon D50 with 2 decent lenses, a bag, battery and charger for $420 last summer. I'm already considering an upgrade to a D90.