Looking to buy an entry level DSLR, tips?
I am sure you are all tired of seeings these "best camera" threads, but I tried searching and I couldn't find any pre-existing thread.
I am thinking of getting an entry level DSLR and I did some research, and I inclined towards a Nikon D60 if I can find one, or a D5000. I am not really sure about the Canons, they seem to have nice crisp photos but the quality deteriorates quicker at higher ISO levels.
I guess in the end it doesn't really matter what you take, provided they are at the same level. It's more of an investment in future if you plan on getting more lenses.
Anyway, to sum it all up - I think of getting a D60 or a D5000, but I'd like to hear some Canon people talk. I also live in the Toronto area, and if someone knows a place with nice prices for cameras, I'd love to hear it.
I will probably be taking landscape pictures most of the time, and macro shots of course.
Sorry if I don't make much sense, it's 2 am and I didn't get any sleep last night.
Oh I should mention that I couldn't find the D60 anywhere, it's sold out all over the place. Online I checked newegg.ca but it doesn't have it, amazon doesn't have it either, but there are plenty at eBay. But on eBay the D5000 cost as much as the D60 and the only reason I was thinking of getting the D60 instead is because I though I could get an additional lense at the cost of the price difference. (I coordinated my prices with Blacks, the photography store. The D5000 costs ~750 and the D60 ~450.) Is eBay an appropriate site to buy expensive electronics though? I bought a USB mic over eBay, but it was 70 bucks, not 700.
I am thinking of getting an entry level DSLR and I did some research, and I inclined towards a Nikon D60 if I can find one, or a D5000. I am not really sure about the Canons, they seem to have nice crisp photos but the quality deteriorates quicker at higher ISO levels.
I guess in the end it doesn't really matter what you take, provided they are at the same level. It's more of an investment in future if you plan on getting more lenses.
Anyway, to sum it all up - I think of getting a D60 or a D5000, but I'd like to hear some Canon people talk. I also live in the Toronto area, and if someone knows a place with nice prices for cameras, I'd love to hear it.
I will probably be taking landscape pictures most of the time, and macro shots of course.
Sorry if I don't make much sense, it's 2 am and I didn't get any sleep last night.
Oh I should mention that I couldn't find the D60 anywhere, it's sold out all over the place. Online I checked newegg.ca but it doesn't have it, amazon doesn't have it either, but there are plenty at eBay. But on eBay the D5000 cost as much as the D60 and the only reason I was thinking of getting the D60 instead is because I though I could get an additional lense at the cost of the price difference. (I coordinated my prices with Blacks, the photography store. The D5000 costs ~750 and the D60 ~450.) Is eBay an appropriate site to buy expensive electronics though? I bought a USB mic over eBay, but it was 70 bucks, not 700.
Replies
My main concern when i was looking for my first DSLR was speed, color, and the type of memory card required. Compact flashes are a pain in the ass in my opinion. Not many things are compatible with them. So the Nikons SD cards were great. Clear crisp color while taking multiple shots were a definite plus.
Hey, thanks for a quick response.
Yeah I looked at the D90s but they seem to be more on the expensive side. Bestbuy gets you a Canon T1i with a kit lense and an additional 55-200 (I think) mm lens for ~1100 while the D90 costs slightly more with just the kit lense.
Also, according to dpreview.com, the picture quality difference between the D5000 and D90 is really minimal, almost indistinguishable.
If they got the same sensor this might be true. Also, that test is made in daylight simulation. Ie. ISO 200 and perfect lighting.
There could be differences when lightning conditions are less than perfect and a higher ISO number is needed.
I compared my D60 with a friend's D90. The D90 was capable of taking higher iso's with less grain which means a better picture.
If you don't need a camera right now I'd save up for a D90.
I know nothing about Canons... except that the 5D Mark II rocks.
edit: oh and don't forget about used cameras... you can get a full sensor house for the price of a new DX house.
Personally I'm a nikon man. I'd go with one that does nice video and has a good weight to it. Nothing worse than a light camera for giving you crap shots.
also, eBay is fine for this kind of stuff.
The D60 is a bit flimsy and tiny for my liking - also it doesn't shoot HD video, which one day you will be kicking yourself over.
Also it only goes up to 3200 iso, even my 9 year old D1 can do that. The higher the iso, the more often you can take pictures like this: (no flash)
I agree, save up for the D90. The D60 is so lacklustre in features you'll soon be kicking yourself that you wasted your money on such a dog egg.
The D90 can go up to 6400 iso and shoots 24fps HD video. Thats a lot of difference for $200 extra
I will recommend against most people's suggestions, but since I'm very heavily into both taking photos often and studying gear and tech, I think my opinion should count more. :-)
Get a used Canon 20D with a 28mm 2.8, and a 50mm 1.8 for around 500 USD. It will provide awesome image quality, really help you learn the basics of photography, and it's a higher end camera than entry level, but it's cheap because it's old. It's still a great camera though.
Any problems you have with your images as a beginner are 99% because of your lack of skill, and 1% lack of better equipment. And since you can practice on almost any camera with manual controls, go cheap, learn the craft, then upgrade when you are sure where you need it. (using the universal you, not aiming this at a particular person)
I got the 510 like 2 years ago and I am very happy with it.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/564508-REG/Olympus_262086_E_520_SLR_Digital_Camera.html
I would get this one instead of something a bit better but second hand at least you have the warranty. No question that would not be as good as Canon or Nikon but for the price it is a great deal and as it was already said at the beginning most of the issues would be caused from not enough knowledge( as in my case) then to bad equipment. This one also comes with another set of lens 40-150 I could not find it right now but the price is still very low
**Poop, my kid keeps saying "Look, there's that green ugly face man." every time he see's your avatar.
Nikon FTW!
Poop, you're right about inexperience. I have actually wanted an SLR for a long time but I convinced myself that it's just me being bad and not the camera. Even now I am not 100% sure I really need one, so in the end I might not end up getting anything at all haha.
Massive thanks to all for noting the difference in sharpness for kit/primes. I had no clue, and I just stumbled across this and you're all right - the kit lens aren't sharp at all when compared to primes.
I have a question about this actually, it seems there are plenty of 50mm primes but I can't seem to find 28mm's at all. I think I just misunderstood what you meant, me being a newbie and all.
Vassago brought up a good point. I don't plan (not yet at least) to be a photo-pro. I don't know where I will end up in the future, though. I am majoring in astrophysics and of course staring at stars is what I will commonly do. Later on I am required to take a course in practical astronomy, and I skimmed over some of the material of last year's class and it seems they learn a lot of optics and a bit of general photography. So who knows, maybe some day I'll be given the spark of PhotoPro wannabe-ism.
EDIT: I should add that now I am considering getting a body-only of whatever camera I choose in the end, and then getting the primes. But this made me remember that D40/D60/D5000 require an Autofocus in the lens (I think) so it kinda limits the lens choice.
The thing with less expensive cameras is that they are crop sensors, meaning they don't see the full projected circle, so you have to multiply a lens mm focal length by 1.6 (canon) 1.5 (nikon) or 2x (olympus). 50mm is so popular because the lenses are easy to make very quality, they don't have to contort the light much like shorter or longer length lenses, AND (this is the important bit) the way they show angles, field of view, and size relationships is how the human eye perceives things. 50mm lens images just "look" right to us, whereas wider tends to look unnatural, and longer tends to look flattened. But to get a 50mm equivalent on these cheaper crop bodies, you need a 28-30mm. (other than olympus where you need a 24mm).
You don't need to "go pro" to do a good purchase. It's basically if you want to be serious at all besides just a quality jump in image quality from a point/shoot. Mid level canon and nikons, like the 20d and 40d I recommended, will give you a ton of control to learn photography, as well as upgradability. The e520 is a great camera, but it's more limited in terms of how much you can grow. You wouldn't keep a canon 20d or 40d if you went pro (most likely not anyway) but you would keep most of your lenses whn moving to a more pro body. Right now the only 3 systems with full frame options to move up to are Canon, Nikon and Sony.
I've been looking at more and more stuff, and tbh I find it impossible to decide. All of the camera are so appealing, but the cons sound bad, and in the end I don't really know what I want. It's like that riddle Liebnitz came up with, about a perfectly rational god and space uniformity. If space (and time, although the concept of spacetime wasn't thought of yet in Liebnitz's time) is truly uniform, then for a perfectly rational god there is no reason to create a universe here or there - it's all the same so how can he decide?
I decided to simply go and touch and hold things, and see what fits best and what I like best. I'm gonna do that tomorrow, after I bomb my last final. But the general consensus I've decided upon is getting a body-only and getting those 50mm primes that sell for ~150 uni-gel for whatever brand I end up getting.
The only problem I see with this is that if I understand correctly, I won't be able to take macro shots properly with only a 50mm, so having the kit lens doesn't seem such a bad thing.
The last question for tonight - do you guys have any recommendations for books or the like to get to know the basics of photography? Or do you guys think it's better to discover everything by myself by means of trail and error and experimenting? I guess I could find a pretty good online guide but I hate reading text on monitors, besides I can always take the book with me to wherever I go.
2nd, you can get cheap extension tubes that allow you to focus closer with your same lens for pseudo Macro. I have the canon brand one which is a little more expensive, but there are chinese ebay ones for super cheap. It goes between your lens and the camera and has no glass in it. All it changes is how close you can focus. This photo uses a normal 85mm lens with a 25mm extension tube.
- Sturdy stainless steel frame which resists alot of wear and tear.
-Weather sealed,i can take pictures in all sorts of weather conditions with good results.
- Double A batteries, seemed like a bad idea but since i travel often i sometimes need replacement betteries and in 5 minutes i can have more juice with a visit to a local kiosk.
- Cheap,cheap lens. Pentax cameras have mounts which allow you to buy and use lens from older non DSLR pentax cameras. You can go on ebay and find tons of cheap older lenses which work as well as newer ones. No auto focus though.
All in all a wonderful Camera to begin shooting with as an amateur DSLR user.
i'd recommend a look at the K-x which seems to get good reviews for image quality. i've got the K-7 personally tho but that's a different league of camera body and not beginner-friendly.
I went to the store today, to hold stuff, and I almost bought a D90 with some accessories for about 1500. I know that for a pro photographer that isn't much of a price, but being a novice and all it really hurt to spend so much money on something which I might not end up using as often as I want to right now. So then I really contemplated ditching everything and getting a good ol' Rebel XSi for about 600. I didn't, though, since I knew I was going to be in NY anyways, and the prices are cheaper there.
When I got home I accidentally stumbled across Ken Rockwell's XSi review, and right in the intro he says that if you can - get the 20D or 30D since they are just better at a lower pixel count. I then tried B&H for 30D in the used department (I looked for 20Ds when you first mentioned them, but only at amazon and ebay, but I haven't tried B&H) and found the 20D for 270 dollars body only. And I just gave up. Coupled with the two primes you guys recommended, the 50mm and the 28mm, the total goes to 600 dollars - in CDN dollars pretty much exactly the amount the XSi costs.
I think I am finally done with this guys. Thanks to all who helped, I'll be having more questions later on when I actually try taking pictures.
I just sincerely hope that Murphy's laws don't come tumbling after me and the camera won't be there, or maybe I won't have time to find the store. Since Murphy was right about just about everything that has happening to me in the last days, I think the odds are high. But I hope.
EDIT: oh, and I'll have to find Compactflash to PCMCA (or w/e it's called) convertor for my laptop which I am taking with me.
Well, what do you fucking know...it's closed on Saturdays....
The two lenses Poop had mentioned are good bits of glass to start out with.
http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ItemsDisplay?storeId=10001&storeId=10001&mrktInitiativeId=3946&departmentId=10404&mrktInitName=Canon+Rebel+XS_091221&categoryId=10429&itemID=243199&catalogId=10001&ddkey=DisplayInitiative
If your wondering about the quality of the camera, check it my bro's flickr account (his photography isn't amazing or anything since he just started a 3 months ago)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wajahatsyed
IS is nice, but I've never owned any lenses with it. I prefer large aperture prime lenses that just let in my light. Keep in mind that IS only steadies your hands, it does nothing for fast moving subjects. At 1/8, any movement at all will show up as blurriness.
If you really want IS, go with Sony bodies, which have IS built into the body, so any lens you get will automatically have it. Canon and Nikon you have to pay extra for lenses with it built in.
Is the general Jist of what you're saying IS lenses will require a longer exposure, thus negating the benifit of having an IS lense in the first place? And if so, is that like, that cheap IS kit lense compared to another cheap lense without IS, or compared to a nice, expensive lense?
I'm not worried about fast moving stuff etc, just the shaky hands, and i think i would really prefer to go with a Canon as well, i havent looked into sony's but i assume inbody IS would = out of my budget, of course it makes sense in the long term if all of my lenses are cheaper, but i'm a bit of a noob getting my first SLR and i dont think i should start worrying about extra lenses etc quite yet(as my wife will likely kill me just for this purchase alone).
Now, I've found that EOS 350D(8mp Rebel XT) + that cheap IS lense for about $390 shiped from keh.com, but that is used and i can get a 10 MP Rebel XS new with the same lense(which seems to be stock on newer Rebels), for about $450 shipped newegg. I'm thinking it might be smarter to get the new camera, but i dont know how the XS matches up to the XT, but it seems like they are very similar.
ISO: sensativity, higher is more sensative to light (800 vs 200) but introduces more noise, and less dynamic range.
Aperture: Larger apertures (represented by smaller numbers, 1.4 is larger than 2.8 ) let in more light at once.
Shutter speed: length of time sensor is exposed. Longer shutter speeds cannot freeze movement, and slow enough and your hand shake will be evident.
IS only helps with shutter speed. And cheap IS lenses have smaller maximum apertures, negating that IS. You can get IS on fast lenses ( 2.8 ) but you will pay out the nose for it.
ISO 1600, f/1.8, and 1/60 of a second is the same exposure as iso 1600, f/4, 1/15. (traded aperture for shutter speed). 1/60 is enough to negate hand shake and freeze normal movements (not running or quick movements though). 1/15 with IS would steady your hands, but 1/15 would show almost any movement in the subject (even lifting a beer glass, casual turning of the head, etc.
Canon makes a 50mm 1.8 which is about 75 dollars and it owns (I use it). the only lens you can get with IS for under 100 is the cheap kit lens, and it has a sliding 4-5.6 aperture (meaning it's only f/4 at widest, and as you zoom it locks down to 5.6 at the long end). So at 50mm it's going to be more like 4.5 or f/5 lens which completely negates the IS advantage over the cheapo 50mm.
Many people get the kit (cheapo body + cheapo lens) and add the 50mm since it's so daggone cheap. For comparison my 85mm 1.8 was 400 dollars, and my 35mm 1.4 was 1,100 dollars. It makes the 50mm look like a real bargain. Both lenses are much sharper at the low apertures than the 50, and the 50 is plastic vs their metal bodies, with slower noisier autofocus, but it's nice.
Another thing to remember, is that the autofocus works off the lens aperture. Larger apertures enable better focusing in low light. Without the flash providing AF assist, an f/4 lens is not gonna get focus in a lowly lit bar, whereas the 50mm 1.8 would.
Thanks
I figure a lot of people are visual, here is something that might help:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm
QFT. My tripod is shite. I bought a cheap one. I'll spend £100 a secondhand one next time.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1261608985&sr=8-1
True, but while it might make me sound like a snob, I recommend anyone wanting to really get into photography park that dial on M and learn how to use the meter. Understanding Exposure (the book I recommended) goes a long way toward this.
The reason is that different situations will put a priority on different settings, and knowing exactly what each does and how to trade one for another will put you ahead in the long run.
I only use P now when I'm using my camera as a glorified party snap camera.
Sometimes I feel point and shoot cameras have been the death of actual photos.
Anyone know if there would be a mount for om-1 to canon lens? as I have two smexy d.zukio 50 and 28 prime lens (plus the standar 35-75mm which I dont really use) and it would be a crime not to carry on using them.
when you set your fstop you set it depending on the effect you want. The shutter speed setting will be determined by the light meter. The camera will tell you if the image is averaged, underexposed or overexposed. I say averaged because when the camera says the picture has the perfect amount of light coming into the lens the result is an average picture, you don't get enough contrast between the whites and blacks. That all depends on what you want though, what kind of drama you want to create. So to punch this a bit you can bracket, try over and under exposing the image by one or two settings and usually you get the image with the range you want. You also need to bracket when something is to bright, like say the sky, water, snow because they will through off the light meter. So when the camera tells you it has the perfect amount of light coming it's usually the starting point.
The higher the number of the fstop, say 8 for example, the smaller the aperture is(hole that controls the amount of light that enters the camera). The size of aperture also affects how in focus things stay as they go away from the camera. So a small aperture 8 or higher, keeps everything in the background nice and sharp but a large aperture like say 3.5 would have a low depth of field, which means the background gets blurry really quickly. This is true provided your subject is in focus.
shutter speed setting. You usually set this high when you want to capture a fast moving object or when it really freaking sunny. Again you set these things depending on how you want the picture to look. Also if you need to leave the shutter open, like if you are taking pictures at night or low light situation then you set the speed really low. Depending on what you are doing the setting of the aperture follows.
I usually set my fstop first, think of it as modeling for texture purposes.
When do you need a tripod. If the shutter speed is too slow or the aperture is too big, lower than 5.6 if I remember correctly. Or the lens you are using is a zoom lens. I don't know if this applies to macro lens as well.
The other thing that affect your picture is the size of your lens. I think a 50 mm lens is supposed to be the closest to how your eye sees and distorts things in perspective. With a wide angle lens things start to warp at the edges although you can capture a wide area and the higher the number say 100 mm you can focus on something that is distant but you can't fit a lot into the frame.
This info is fairly crude though and I'm very rusty. I'm sure there is a lot more to it and I probably forgot a few things.
One of the things I do when I take pictures with my digital camera and I'm inside a building is I set the timer and place the camera on something that is firm like a book case , desk and then push the button. That way I can't mess the picture up with my body movement. You can also lean against the wall and keep your arms tight against your body to diminish your body from shaking. The ideal thing though is to have a tripod, regardless of where you are taking the pictures.
Do you guys know if you can buy a release ( long cable with a button) like you can for a manual camera? That way you are not touching the camera when you take the picture.
Also, what is the crop factor with a lens like that 50mm on a standard dslr? Like what sort of amount are you "zoomed in" if its a fixed length.
Reading about it the most attractive feature with that 50mm prime lens is the high aperture and the ability to have the narrower depth of field, which is something i really want to play with. But it seems like you'de be a little more limited overall with a prime lense?
Also i went and messed with a Rebel XS at office depot today, just playing around with the IS kit lens etc, i found it was pretty hard to take decent shots without the IS, but the lowest i could set it to was like f3.5 or something, and this 50mm is f1.8. So basically it comes down to zoom flexibility over depth of field/shoot speed, when comparing those to lenses, and i think the 50mm probably wins out(i wish i had a change to play with one before i decide).
actual crop factor is dependent on the body: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C but a 50mm turns into roughly 75mm
Yeah a prime limits you but you're going to have better image quality most of the time, there should be less elements of glass the light is going through so less chance for chromatic abberation, vignetting etc....
I only have 1 prime right now and it's a nikkor 35mm F2 and it's nice, not as fast as a 1.4 or 1.8 but it works... and the 35mm on my crop sensory turns into what would be 50mm on a full frame.
I think it's awesome there's so much interest in photography, It really gets you to thinking about light and exposure and will certainly give you skills that translate to games. Yeah it seems a little technical at first but it's not that bad once it clicks
I was gonna get ready and snap some nice pictures today when my camera refused to turn on. I usually put it in a room to get it used to the temp I am gonna shoot in (so there is no condensation). I just hope it wasn't too cold/killed my batts.