Completely Green to SLR Photography [Archive]

reuber1

03-08-2007, 01:31 PM

I just got my first damn sweet tax return ever, and am looking to make a couple of purchases I feel are necessary. One is a Wacom Intuos tablet, which I already know which I want. The other is a digital SLR camera, as I've been stuck with a lousy 4 megapixel consumer-level camera for the past three years and I'm looking to upgrade.

Thing is, I don't know the first thing about them. I don't know what the hell a RAW image is. I don't know if I should go with Canon or Nikon, how many megapixels I should go to. I'm not looking to be a professional photographer, but I do want the ability to take stunning photos that will be good enough to print at 8.5 x 11...possibly poster size, unless that's too expensive. There's a bunch of things I'm not too sure of and don't know what questions to ask. SLR seems to be a completely different beast than the typical cameras that people buy for cheap, so my prior retail experience & knowledge really isn't helping me out.

Any advice, recommendations on a good digital SLR for someone who is new to them? Something that will last and is effective enough to produce some solid work with.

Exodus

03-08-2007, 01:48 PM

I'm sure someone will be along to give more in depth advise sortly... I'm swamped with work for the second day in a row.

More megapixels doesn't necessarily mean better quality. You have to play close attention to the different sizes of sensors on SLR cameras. You can essentially have a camera with more megapixels but a smaller sensor and produce a grainier picture than with a camera with slightly less megapixels but a larger sensor.

Research the basic lenses that come with the different cameras. Some are better than others.

Get an extra battery. It sucks to be in the middle of nowhere and have a great shot only to find your battery has already ran out of juice.

Get an extra flash card or two. Same reason as above.

I wish I could go more in depth reuber... I'm hella busy today.

reuber1

03-08-2007, 02:12 PM

No problem Exodus, thanks for that info though. Clears some matters up.

mac.FINN

03-08-2007, 05:00 PM

I'll add a bit...

Ex is right, The quality of image depends more on the sensor than the # of MPs. Basically the more MPs you have the bigger the images not necessarily the better.

Lenses! When I bought my Rebel, I got the kit lens. Now I wish I'd bought just the body and saved a little and put it towards a better lens. Research the kinds of lenses you'd want, what type of shots do you want to take etc.
My rule of thumb for a lens is faster is better. An f1.2, f1.4 or f1.8 will let you take shots in low light with faster shutter speed, so there's less blur and shake.

The best advice I can give you is to research and when you find a model you're interesting in - go try it out! If there's a Henry's or another camera store near you, go in and ask to play with one. You'll want to be comfortable with the camera for sure.

fredrich

03-08-2007, 06:15 PM

My rule of thumb for a lens is faster is better. An f1.2, f1.4 or f1.8 will let you take shots in low light with faster shutter speed, so there's less blur and shake.

But then again it gives you less DOF, and lenses that go down in the range you're mentioning is often very expensive.

hewligan

03-08-2007, 07:18 PM

But then again it gives you less DOF, and lenses that go down in the range you're mentioning is often very expensive.

That's true, but it does let you get a sharp image without that tripod that you left at home...

mac.FINN

03-08-2007, 07:52 PM

But then again it gives you less DOF, and lenses that go down in the range you're mentioning is often very expensive.

You're actually getting a greater range of DOF from deep to very shallow. I'd take it. A nice crisp shallow depth of field is better than an all around blur.
Tru they are expensive, but if you're going to get a DSLR you're already interested in investing some heavy coin into your photography, if you've got the extra cash to upgrade the lens do it. If not stick with a cheaper lens for now.

reuber1

03-08-2007, 11:02 PM

You're actually getting a greater range of DOF from deep to very shallow. I'd take it. A nice crisp shallow depth of field is better than an all around blur.
Tru they are expensive, but if you're going to get a DSLR you're already interested in investing some heavy coin into your photography, if you've got the extra cash to upgrade the lens do it. If not stick with a cheaper lens for now.
How much am I looking at for lenses? Couple hundred?

Ned

03-08-2007, 11:26 PM

That's true, but it does let you get a sharp image without that tripod that you left at home...

Left your tripod at home!? Bad photographer! BAD!

hewligan

03-08-2007, 11:28 PM

Left your tripod at home!? Bad photographer! BAD!

Well, I'm a mediocre photographer at best, and carrying around a damn tripod is way too much effort. Better to aim for a short exposure and press the shutter release with crossed fingers :D

Mynock

03-08-2007, 11:30 PM

Head to Steve's DigiCam site. It's the only one you'll need.

fredrich

03-09-2007, 09:43 AM

That's true, but it does let you get a sharp image without that tripod that you left at home...

Canon has a neat function on some of their lenses (other producers also have this I think, just under other names), which is the IS (Image Stabilizer). I find this very useful on my allround lens (EF-S 17-85mm IS) which is the lens that is on the camera most of the time. When the light gets a little bit too low, the stabilizer can help you getting a clearer shot with about 2-3 "exposure steps" at it's best.

I have the following lenses to my EOS350D:

EF-S 17-85mm IS
Sigma 50mm 2.8 Macro
Sigma 10-20mm F4.0-5.6

The first one is a great allrounder. Not too expensive, very useful mm-range and IS.

The second one is a sharp full macro lens with fixed range. Nice to use if you don't have to zoom, or want to shoot macro.

The last one is mostly a playaround lens, super wide angle. I don't tend to use it, but it can be useful and funny to play around with.

mac.FINN

03-09-2007, 01:43 PM

How much am I looking at for lenses? Couple hundred?

Depends on the lens and how many lenses you want. You could easily drop a couple hundred on a single lens. Lenses are expensive, no way around it.

laterthanyou

03-12-2007, 04:21 PM

How much am I looking at for lenses? Couple hundred?
If you want a crummy lens yeah a couple of hundred. If you can tell me what you want to do and what your budget is I can price out a system for you... You could also go to ww.dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com) and ask there. Although if you don't know much about photography it might just confuse you more.

I'll say this.

Nikon = better consumer

Canon = better pro

I shoot a canon 5d with a compliment of L series lenses. The whole thing cost me about 8K. Does it take nice pictures? Yes.

For you I can imagine either Canon xti with their 24mm-105mm F4/L lens

or a

Nikon D80 with theirnikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AFS lens.

The nikon body is a bit more expensive but the lens is a bit cheaper.

The Canon is the other way around...

Now here's the wacky part...

The canon sensor overall is better. espescially in the higher ISOs. If you are going to be doing a lot of lowlight photography, I really suggest you go for the Canon.

If you are shooting action sports at the amatuer level in bright light I might go for the nikon as it has better metering and autofocus.

I'm obviously in the canon camp so take everything I say with a grain of salt, but the biggest factor in getting a good picture is the person behind the camera..Here's 3 of my favorite shots. ONe was 35mm one was a 5 MP sony 707 and one was a canon 5D.. Not saying which ones... You figure it out...

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/1725/shinkansenwc4.jpg

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/2464/sangl7.jpg

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/8891/greenteajs5.jpg

reuber1

03-12-2007, 05:38 PM

Thanks for the info, later. I will be doing some lowlight shots I'd imagine, but does that mean it's going to be more sensitive to any bright outdoor shots? So far the Canon is sounding up my alley.

Satchel

03-12-2007, 05:49 PM

Congrats Reubs... I wish I was getting a nice tax return! :(

Just for your information, i have recently started to dabble in photography. Got myself a Canon Rebel XT (like 3 months before the XTi came out) and I have had so much fun with it! I am looking to upgrade my lenses but the ones I got with it work just fine for now!

reuber1

03-12-2007, 05:57 PM

Congrats Reubs... I wish I was getting a nice tax return! :(
Yeah, you know how paranoid I am about this though? All I'm waiting for next year is an "Oh, your Tax Software was incorrect and we overpaid you by a grand. You owe us." With the way my luck usually goes, that might happen, but I'm taking this one as is.

:D

Satchel

03-12-2007, 06:02 PM

Might as well, no sense in worring about next year already! Plus debt is fun... :)

reuber1

03-12-2007, 06:09 PM

Might as well, no sense in worring about next year already! Plus debt is fun... :)
Absolutely....

Satchel

03-12-2007, 06:14 PM

Let us know what you get and how you like it... I honestly dont think you can go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. Both very solid brands!

laterthanyou

03-12-2007, 06:27 PM

Thanks for the info, later. I will be doing some lowlight shots I'd imagine, but does that mean it's going to be more sensitive to any bright outdoor shots? So far the Canon is sounding up my alley.

No. Technically it should do better in bright light as well. You just can't see it.

Basically what we are talking about is the sensors signal to noise ratio.

All sensors really only shoot at 100-200 ISO as a base. Anything above that is just gaining up or amplifying the signal which adds noise/grain/artifacts to the image. Canon seems to have a better process of getting a clean image at the higer ISOs

Digital is really unforgiving compared to film. If you use a cheap lens you are more likely to see chromatic abberations as well as less sharpness and color quality.

Get the best lens you can afford b/c in the end you are investing in the lens system and not the camera. EF mounts have been around for almost 20 years and they aren't going anywhere soon if ever. Your camera might last you 5 yearsbut your lens can last 15. When you get a new camera your high quality lens will still fit it....

reuber1

03-14-2007, 03:14 PM

This is going to sound stupid...

Do I need a lens when I first get one of these to just use it right off? I'm looking at this bad boy right now...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000I1ZWRW/ref=wl_it_dp/103-4985766-8291856?ie=UTF8&coliid=IHZG1SK79IYX0&colid=OJ6A0EPP1ZPT

Again, I'm new to all of this and this seems like something that is to be assumed.

hewligan

03-14-2007, 06:07 PM

Well, you certainly need a lens. When they say "body only," that mean it has no lens. The ones that come with lenses are called "kits."

reuber1

03-14-2007, 06:10 PM

Well, you certainly need a lens. When they say "body only," that mean it has no lens. The ones that come with lenses are called "kits."
Dammit.

fredrich

03-15-2007, 12:28 PM

But then again, the most common kit lens for EOS/Rebel cameras is the EF-S 15-55mm. It's okay enough for starters, but you'll find yourself wanting to replace it with a better one down the line.

laterthanyou

03-15-2007, 02:08 PM

reuber1

03-15-2007, 02:31 PM

I got about $1500 that I'm looking to split across a Wacom Intuos3, which is around $270 or so, and the digital SLR and lens, with preferably a few hundred to spare. So let's say about $800-$900 range, erring on the side of $900.

vtwin_gary

03-15-2007, 04:44 PM

You can get the whole shebang for 800

800 for the kit + an extra battery & case= total budget.

reuber1

03-19-2007, 04:06 PM

B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=6222&A=details&Q=&sku=457506&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation) is cheaper by about $30.

You'll need a lens. You can get the whole shebang for 800 here. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=6222&A=details&Q=&sku=464946&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation)

What is your total budget?

Personally I would buy a good lens and a used slr. The lens is way more important than the camera.
Not to keep pestering you, but you seem to know what you're talking about. How is that lens that comes in that kit? Is that a reasonable one for someone just starting off? I'd definitely be interested in upgrading down the road, but for now I don't need something that's outstanding, but just not terrible either. For the total price, that seems like a route I'm willing to go.

Tyger

03-19-2007, 04:57 PM

reuber, the kit lens isn't that bad really. When I first got my XT I got it with the 18-55mm kit lens and learned alot from it. For the price it's not that bad..others beg to differ. since you are just starting off it will fit your needs. However you said you will be doing low light photography...the kit lens doesn't perform that well indoor/lowlight unless you have a separate flash unit, the onboard one sucks or you slow down your shutter speed and mount it on a tripod. For indoor you want a lens that can go minimum f2.8, ideally 1.4-2.0 is good.

What are your intentions? The kit lens performs fairly well outdoor and the range is o.k. There is a canon 50mm 1.8 that is very cheap and fairly sharp for it's price. It's built very cheap though. The only thing is that it is a prime lens so you need to move your feet to compose the shot.

Tyger

03-19-2007, 05:00 PM

oh another things to keep in mind with DSLR cameras your lens length will be longer by 1.6...meaning a 50mm lens is actually an 80mm...this is called the crop factor.

read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

reuber1

03-19-2007, 05:44 PM

fredrich

03-19-2007, 06:59 PM

What are your intentions? The kit lens performs fairly well outdoor and the range is o.k. There is a canon 50mm 1.8 that is very cheap and fairly sharp for it's price. It's built very cheap though. The only thing is that it is a prime lens so you need to move your feet to compose the shot.

I had the Canon 50mm 1.8 II for about two weeks, before I sold it. It was straight up annoying to use. Built cheap, slow to focus, not useful at short ranges and have a useless manual focus ring. I bought the Sigma 50mm 2.8 instead. Happy with it. It's not too quick focusing either, but is built better and is a 1:1 macro lens.

laterthanyou

03-23-2007, 02:37 PM

Not to keep pestering you, but you seem to know what you're talking about. How is that lens that comes in that kit? Is that a reasonable one for someone just starting off? I'd definitely be interested in upgrading down the road, but for now I don't need something that's outstanding, but just not terrible either. For the total price, that seems like a route I'm willing to go.

its an ok lens. Get it as a kit to start out.

Do you live in a city? Or near one?

I would suggest renting a pro lens.

You can rent one for the day or for the weekend.

They can run 25-35 a day or usually $50 for Friday-Sunday. This a lot cheaper than dropping $1300
for one.

You can also go to rentglass.com (http://www.rentglass.com/shop.aspx?type=Canon&iso=yes) They will ship high quality lenses to you.

Never used them but I've heard good things about them..

To be honest I get a lot accolades for my pictures b/c of my lens choices. Anyone can push a button to take the picture... But it's the choices you make which determine how your picture will turn out.

Where will I place my subjects?
Where is the light coming from?
What color do I want that light to be?
Do I want soft light to fill in shadows?
Do I want hard/specualr light to create definition?
what focal length do I want?
What do I want my depth of field to be?

If I have answers to these questions I have a better chance of getting the photo that I want. Yeah you can just snap pictures on auto mode or P mode, but then your really not making descions... the camera is...and if thats the case you might as well get a point and shoot.

InZenith

04-03-2007, 06:01 PM

I'm also completely new to the photographer scene, I decided there would be no point in spending too much on a piece of equipment that I didn't know how to use so I got myself what I believe to be a bargain introduction DSLR in the form of the Olympus e500. It's only 8MP but as the model itself is a year old with the successor being the e400 I got it pretty cheap. The double lens kit, the body, tripod and a nice lowepro bag all cost me about £450 new and the auto mode make me feel really cool when all I am actually doing is pointing and shooting (...atleast until I figure out how in the hell cameras work)

Sweethouse

04-03-2007, 07:50 PM

I just got into photography about a year and a half ago. It is alot of fun but can seem a bit overwhelming at first.

Check out this site, it is Canon focused but there is alot of good info and nice people there
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

Also find a book titled Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. It is a great book that has alot of examples to illustrate what he is talking about.