It's time to take the next step in digital photography; it's time to acquire a (digital) single-lens reflex (SLR) camera. We've had a succession of digital cameras over the past dozen years, from a 2.1 megapixel Canon that we spent $900 on in 1999 that is less advanced than the $20 iCarly camera I gave my daughter for her birthday this year, to the current Panasonic Lumix we picked up on sale at BJ's for $120 a couple years back.
I've always been a photography buff, starting with a Kodak 126 Instamatic when I was 5. The art of taking pictures - of capturing images and preserving them for eternity - has always fascinated me, leading to an ever-changing progression of cameras. A Vivitar that used 110 film and had a built-in flash(!). A disk camera! Eventually, an inexpensive 35mm camera was obtained and served me well through college and graduate school, and then it was the digital age.
I inherited my shutterbug instincts from Mom G. She jokingly referred to herself as "Kitty Kodak", as she was always the person behind the camera, getting pictures of the family at every event. She also had a succession of cameras, eventually acquiring the pieces to a pretty sophisticated 35mm set-up complete with telephoto lens, wide angle lens, etc.; and took some pretty amazing photographs back in the day. It's that modularity that really appeals to me with the digital SLR cameras, that you can swap out the lens and have a completely different setup.
Now, there are setups out there for digital SLRs that run from the inexpensive (yes) to the "holy crap, I've bought nice cars for less than that" range (no). I'm looking for something in the former, but with the option for high(er) end attachments down the road, if such a beast is even possible. An entry-level camera body, with a decent general-purpose lens to start, but with the option for better, bigger, specialized lens down the road would be perfect.
Does such a creature exist? It would seem to be in the camera maker's best interest to offer something of this sort- get you hooked on their brand, then make their money selling you accessories and parts and upgrades. Many camera makes offer package deals on their digital SLR cameras, but quite often, as packages are wont to do, there's always something you don't need or want tossed in that makes it a less-attractive option.
What are the most important things to look for in a digital SLR? Are megapixels the be-all, end-all? Does one manufacturer have a better or worse reputation than others? Do the makers of traditional film camera offer comparable digital models (i.e. is the hierarchy more or less the same)? Basically, I'd like to have something in hand before we take our trip to DC in April, so there's plenty of time to research brands and look for sales. I'm just looking for pointers on where to begin my search...
Anyone have any tips, comments, or suggestions on digital SLR cameras?
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
I'm by no means an expert on this, but..
My mom has had Cannon Rebels for the past decade, and they've always impressed me. Her first was a 35mm, and since then has picked up 2 of the digital SLR Rebels.
Nice cameras, use friendly, and all of the accessories swap.
I've got a Digital Rebel myself, and it's really handy to just raid mom's bag-o-lenses when I want to shoot pics than to have my own.
ymmv
go Canon or Nikon and you can't go wrong. i'm partial to Nikon (since they have some of the best glass out there) but Canon's glass is decent, too.
basically: buy the best body you can afford. you can always find glass for cheap on Craigslist.
I have had good luck with Canon. I am not a Nikon fan at all - for any of their products. Lenses may be good but I think Canon has better overall quality. Get the best glass you can afford -- don't cheap out there. In fact, get a body, then add a nice lens (not the one that comes with the low end package).
WV: "catiness" -- not really, just my opinion
As fainfenix said, go with a Nikon or Canon. This will give you the greatest range of lenses and accessories. You do need to know that if you want to use auto-focus on a dSLR, you will need to buy the more expensive auto-focus lenses. The auto-focus lenses have built in motors that do the focusing.
I don't know what your budget is, but I would suggest either a Nikon D3100 or Canon Rebel T1i.
I have had the Cannon Rebel XT for 3-4 years. Really want to step up to the new T1i or T2i. Big advantage is light. The XS is a good model too.
The biggest difference between digital cameras is the sensor. The better the sensor the better the quality. Unless you're making posters or billboards pixel counts are so high you can't tell the difference. between 12 & 18.
Lenses. I would recommend foregoing the included cheap 18-55 lense and getting a nicer quality 18-200. Much better zoom range and you can usually get a better f-stop (more light intake) for a reasonalbe price. Probably add another $400 for a quality non-cannon lense like sigma or tamron.
The Cannon / Nikon debate is the same thing as Ford / Chevy or Sox / Yankees. You're either one or the other....... for life. So choose carfully.
Shop around for one of the Package deals - Body and 2 lenes wide angle zoom and tele zoom.
But the best thing you can do is go to the Nikon school ( even if you're a Cannon user) - 2 days of classes ( from beginning to advanced ). Next one is Jan 8th in Waltham
http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/Nikon-School/Schedules.page
My uncle runs a camera blog that probably has a lot of what you need. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html Probably more than you will need, actually.
You can't go wrong with the Canon Rebel line. Mom's a picture fanatic and that's what she uses. Don't know what lenses she has but I know it's not the cheapo standard one.
As others have said, the lens is most important. Don't skimp there.
My son has a Canon T1i and loves it. He lusts after the T2i for its faster processor and ability to make full HD movies at 30fps. The T1i is easy to use and takes very good pictures in full auto mode for the P&S users, and takes incredible shots in the manual mode if you set it up correctly.
I really like the T1i.
My $0.03, tax included.
Bex loves her Nikon D40. Basic enough to learn on, but with enough horsepower to take some awesome pictures. I think it set me back about $400. Lenses will cost $200-$300 each, and you'll want to add a 50-250 or so, trust me on that.
I'll echo what everyone else says, go Canon or Nikon, and I have to admit my preference for Nikon, largely based on the Nikkor lenses.
My current rig is a Nikon D5000, which I bought factory refurbed from Adorama (very reputable dealer, anyone else and I'd have been leery about a refurb.) I essentially got a $700 body for $400. If I were to look at a new body today, I'd look hard at the D3100 - lotsa bang for your buck there. You can get kits with either body that include the 18-55mm autofocusing, anti-vibration lens, and add a speedlight, tripod and a 55-200 lens to that for about $200 more, and you have a very versatile setup.
Jay,
Please go here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/
Read ALL of his reviews. He does reviews on Canon and Nikon. (he's a Nikon fanboy, but he is VERY impartial in his comparison reviews)
Ken is a pro-photog...makes his living at it. I read his reviews thoroughly before investing in my latest machine (even tho he slammed it...I figured that was a good sign, because he *really* picked it apart, and I thought he went too far. I love my Nikon, and haven't yet regretted it...)
He writes a very good article on his site called *Megapixels don't Matter...the Megapixel Myth*. I was a pro-level photog many moons ago (used a medium format Bronica system for portraits and weddings) and got out of it as the Digital Age fell upon us. This one article alone helped so much in bringing me up to speed on the whole digital thing and megapixels.
Dragon
I will agree with the opinions already stated. I have had the Rebel xt for 4 years and love it. I want to step up to the T2i or T1i. For the improved processing and light sensitivity. ( I do alot of pictures of indoor sports (daughter is a competitive cheerleader)).
Definitely follow the advice on the lens and do not but the kit. Get a good aftermarked lens. I like the 18-200mm for all around use. The lens that came with my kit sites in a bag along with the 70-300 I ordered at the same time.
Megapixel over 10 won't really matter until you start making billboards or cropping in very close on a wide angle picture.
i agree with visiting Ken Rockwell's site. he's a good reviewer.
Canon or Nikon.
My camera (which you've seen) is a 30D. Several years old and still quite a camera.
For my money, I'd look for a gently-used EOS 30D or 40D and a decent lens, instead of the Rebel lineup. The Rebel really is a consumer camera, where the 30D and up are "prosumer" with a few more features and abilities.
If you want new, then just wander down to Beast Buy and fondle the Nikons and Canons in the same price range. Pick which one feels better in your hand. That's how I ended up choosing a Canon.
Any of the Nikon prosumer bodies with the 18-200 VR lens is all you'll need for a while. Two co-workers bought them and loved them, and I recommended it to my Dad and he's also very happy with it. The 18-200 isn't cheap at around $700 last I checked, but it replaces a whole bag of lenses for most people.
Looks like the current Nikon to go with is the D3100, which comes with an 18-55 VR lens. I'd start with that and think about going to the 18-200 if you want more zoom range.
I'll 3rd the kenrockwell.com recommendation.
You should also consider the pentax camera systems. They have the philosophy that new cameras should be able to use all the old lenses.
This means their is a huge market for vintage lenses. One of the best low light lenses on the market right now is a 50MM 1.4F prime.
More fanboy info at http://www.pentaxforums.com/
Also woot will have the bodys, sans lens on sale every so often.
Caveat: For portraits and general low light work inside it does a great job.
It's not so hot at fast action shots such as sporting events.
The Nikon D3100 is a great DSLR to start out with. Calumet has the kit with 55-200mm on sale (but backordered) with an extra $50 off (use code holidaysale). Should be $679 out the door, about $100 cheaper than other dealers. Very good price for a very capable kit.
D3100 at Calumet
and
Slickdeals thread
Jay,
I'll register another vote for Nikon. Good enough for the Apollo astronauts -- good enough for you. And yes, their glass is some of the best in the business.
- Brad
Imagine you take the best photo of your life and get a poster sized print made and get it framed for the living room wall. If you get 15 megapixels or more, you'll be able to walk right up to it and marvel at the detail. If you get less than 12mp you'll regret it.
Canon are always a little ahead in the sensor technology war.
What are the most important things to look for in a digital SLR?
Honestly, the name. You are 100% right - once you start going down the path of a certain company's DSLRs, you are not likely to change any time in the near future; so, choose wisely. Canon and Nikon have both been around forever, both have no shortage of official, OEM, and aftermarket accessories for them, and have thriving communities for support and trade. Sony, Olympus, and Pentax less so, and the rest even less, for a variety of reasons. I have a particular fondness for odd equipment, but I went with a Canon.
Are megapixels the be-all, end-all?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: One of the first decisions you have to make in regards to DSLR is sensor size, which has absolutely nothing to do with MPs. Rather, it is the actual, physical size of the circuitry that takes your pictures, and you have the choice of "full frame" (i.e. identical in dimensions to 35mm film), or APS-C (about 40% the size of 35mm film). This decision affects your future choices of lenses (glass compatible with the latter may or may not be compatible with the former), your image quality (more space equals more circuitry equals higher image quality, and generally higher MP, though the two are not bound together), and your cost (full frame is generally more expensive). "Four-Thirds" is also an up-and-coming new size for sensors, but, honestly, for a newcomer to DSLRs, I would stick with the standards.
Moving on, you want to pay attention to things like ISO (lets you take pictures in darker settings without quality loss), image clarity, chromatic aberration (generally the fault of the glass, but sensors sometimes are to blame), and a host of other details. But, no, MPs are not the only things that count, unless you plan on putting a billboard-sized blowup in your family room.
Does one manufacturer have a better or worse reputation than others
From my mother-in-law's experience, stay away from Sony. From my experience, I like Canon, even their refurbed models. From Les Jones' experience, Nikons are awesome. From my previous experience with their "prosumer" models, Olympus makes some solid equipment. Most people have sorted out their issues, but the reality is that the big names are big for a reason.
[CONT]
[/CONT]
Do the makers of traditional film camera offer comparable digital models (i.e. is the hierarchy more or less the same)?
Yes. And the best part is that most traditional film lenses are compatible with digital models (though you need to pay attention to the details like mount format, autofocus, and stuff like that if you want 100% compatibility). This can save you money, but might cost you features (like autofocus). But, really, does anyone actually produce film SLRs any more? ;)
And a few closing points:
- They pretty much all can do it now, but be sure to get something that can take RAW files. That is a topic for another conversation thread, but you will want it later.
- Do not underestimate refurbs... Using Canon's trade-in program, we were able to get a one-model-cycle older camera for about half its market price. I had to send its kit lens back for realigning, but small price to pay.
- Cameras are kind of like computers - you buy a certain unit, and the next day it is obsolete. So buy the best you can at the time, and run it until it dies.
- On the flip side, even the crappiest of Canon cameras can mount pretty much all Canon glass (and the same for Nikon cameras and Nikon glass, etc.), and glass is pretty much what makes your pictures. Count on spending X for your camera, and somewhere around 2X to 10X for your glass... eventually. The first lens I bought cost more than my camera's body.
- Like guns, see if you can find people who have examples of the cameras you are interested in, and fool around with them. Every company arranges their controls, menus, and details in certain ways, and some people like one format over the others.
- And, on a somewhat personal note, do not underestimate "prime" lenses - the pictures they can help you take are simply amazing.
As always, I strongly recommend Steve's Digicams and DPReview for your specific camera reviews, and good hunting! :)
Everyone will tell you Cannon or Nikon. I started with a K1000 years ago as my first SLR, then migrated to the Cannon Rebel, then the digital Rebel, then I moved up to the Cannon D5 and I have a 70-200 L series lens. Its a friggen great camera, but way more than most folks need. Next up for me is likely to be the Panasonic Lumix GF1 Micro Four Thirds. SLR capabilities, smaller footprint, yummyness all around.
Ken Rockwell gets a pretty bad rap on a lot of photog forums, a lot of the pros think he is a pompous windbag and disagree with him. I have no opinion, either way.
10mp is about as low as you should go, though the 6 range is fine. It all depends on how much cropping (or how large a print) you want to do, the more MP the merrier, in that case.
You want to chase the whole system, not just the body. Lenses, flashes, etc. Canon and Nikon are king, here, though there are decent offerings elsewhere.
Newer DSLRs can handle higher ISOs, some of the pro models able to shoot above ISO100K :-O
If you get a decent quality body, you should be fine. It's the glass you stick on the front of it that is the most important.
I snagged a Nikon D80 (2 or so generations old, at this point) for 400 bucks, with kit lens. It's a great camera, 10.2 megapixel, capable of clean images at around ISO800, higher ISOs available, uses SD cards, and it has the in-body auto-focus motor, unlike the lower model D40/D40x/D3000/D3100. It's their top level "Prosumer" grade camera, replaced by the D90. I suspect a replacement for the D90 will be coming out soon, so prices on those should drop, too.
You have to think long and hard about a DSLR - do you need the features? Fixed lens XLRs and similar are getting very, very good, and for most people is more than enough. I like to go to airshows and take pictures, so I needed the ability to shoot several frames a second with a 300 or 400mm lens strapped to the front.
I shoot Nikon, my choice was between Nikon or Canon, my parents shoot Nikon (so I could bum equipment) and my coworker was selling his Nikon, so I went Nikon. When I hit the lottery, I'll be purchasing a Canon, as well, just so I can take advantage of the high points of both manufacturer's gear. Neither one is really better, so don't let anyone tell you that. If you NEED an 800mm or 1200mm lens (and have the $120k for the 1200mm), or an autofocus lens at f/1.2, you'll need to go Canon, but otherwise...it's a toss up.
Well, Cannon and Nikon are the brands everyone will tell you to buy. They're often easiest to find accessories for, for much that reason.
However I personally own a Pentax and quite like it. My dad bought a regular SLR from them before I was born and 35 years later its still producing film that looks great. It held up to my dad's military service, and my college student life. SO when I went looking for a DSLR I took a close look at the Pentax models, and went ahead and bought one.
Personally I suggest taking the time to contrast and compare. If you have a decent camera shop near you (and NOT Ritz camera unless there's a geek behind the counter) go in and get them to walk you through what they carry. Ask to hold them and see how they fit in your hands (I have very small hands, so this was very important that I could HOLD the camera properly, people with very large hands probly have the same problem). If you don't have such a shop near you take the time to pull up a bunch of pages on a place like Amazon (not saying BUY there, but its a handy place to compare and contrast) and look over the options.
Unless you plan to do REALLY high end photos (like Oleg) you probly don't need the highest megapixal rating, but 5 or less is WAY to low, 6 to 10 is probly fine for the average person. If you want to be able to do extra large prints of your pictures (poster size) pay for a rating over 10mp though, you'll be glad you did.
Do you NEED all those extra features some of the fancy cameras offer? If you want this or that then make sure you get it, but if you don't, then there's no point in paying for it.
Don't be afraid to buy a camera thats about to be discontinued. My camera was a $1000 package (body & single lens) but because they were discontinuing it I got it on Amazon for just a shade over $500. The newer lenses still work with the discontinued body and I paid a lot less then I would have had to otherwise.
I'm partial to Pentax. Had a Canon and after the issues and poor customer service I won't go back.
If I lived in a large enough area to have a good local camera repair shop I'd go Canon. If I had no price issues I'd go with a Nikon. But as it is I have a Pentax.
Do consider the Pentax line. Many of their offerings are weather (rain) resistant, and there is half a century of K-mount lenses to draw from.
Have a look through www.keh.com
Other commenters have already said most of the things I would, except one or two items. Herewith those:
1) RESEARCH FIRST, buy second. Be vewy vewy careful when hunting cameras. Base models are bait; they will take good pictures under most conditions, but they're cheap precisely because they're missing useful features that the higher end cameras have. In Nikon's case, for example, one way they cut the price for the D40 was by removing the internal focusing motor. This means the D40 can only use lenses that have their own focusing motor, and not all lenses have that. It would really suck to spend $$$ on a new lens, then find you can't use it. Most places are good about returns, but even so...
2) Megapixels matter, but not as much as the ads would have you believe. Most people simply don't need more than 10MP or so.
3) Pay attention to the cost of spare items. (Rule 4: always carry a spare.) Spare batteries, spare data cards. Plan to buy at least 1 of each.
4) Try before you buy. Some cameras will fit your hands better than others. Pick up each one, heft it, try looking at it and through it. All digital cameras have basically the same controls, but not always in quite the same places or working in quite the same ways. This will be YOUR camera, so get one that you like.
Most of the photos over at my place come from my Nikon D40 with a 35mm primary lens (with some photoshoppery...) I picked it up a while ago on clearance somewhere, kit with an 18-55mm lens for less than $500. They've got some new bodies out now that are similarly priced with more features too.
Megapixels are nice, but glass is more important. You can always upgrade to a nicer body (I want a D90 someday...), but you can't fix bad glass with more megapixels; just makes it look worse really.
Nikon and Canon are definitely the giants in the industry, and for good reasons. Either of those options are going to have plenty of stuff out there. I like Nikkor lenses better than the Canon options, but either is good.
I hope the second part of my comment got trapped in your spam-catcher...
Nikon.
You can use old 35mm F series lenses, all the way back to the original F series Photomic of the 1960s.
Granted, you'd not have the autofocus feature, and you'd have to use "stop down" metering, but the lens will mount, and it will work.
Canon, as great as their equipment is, (and it's really, really good stuff), had at least one "system" lens mount change early in the digital era.
Its really neat to be able to use ancient Nikkor lenses such as the 15mm rectilinear, or the 28mm or 35mm Perspective Shift lenses.
And you can get some of those dirt cheap at the camera shows, Craigslist or the like.
I'd suggest buying at the lowest rung of "professional grade" equipment for the body. It's built tougher, has more weather resistance and like buying a quality 1911 over a HiPoint, will just be the better investment in the long haul.
And let me tag along in endorsing the Nikon School. It is to phototgraphy what Appleseed is to riflery. Just. Do. It.
That's my $0.02, etc.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Check out Ken Rockwell's site. Read all his articles :) I have a D40 I bought at WalMart with extended warranty for ~$450 and I really like it -- even though I still need to figure out how to use it correctly when not in auto mode.
Nikon is a good choice because they don't change their lens attachment system every model so you have a wider choice of lenses and don't need to upgrade everything when you want a new body.
I'll put a word in for Nikon.
But some notes: I'm not convinced that auto-focus is a good thing in an SLR. I know I get very frustrated when my rangefinder focuses on the wrong object in a frame. I prefer manual focus and a good ground-glass TTL viewer.
Also: this might be outdated, but it used to be that Pentaxes used a threaded lens mount that was incredibly easy to mung. Nikon and Canon both use a bayonet mount. If Pentax still supports legacy lenses from the '60s, that would be something to fear.
Finally: YES +a brazilian to the Nikon school. They are VERY good at conveying a LOT of valuable wisdom in a short period. The comparison to Applesee is apt.
M
Another vote for Pentax. The k-r and k-x models are good entry level dslrs.
BTW, the modern Pentaxes use a twist lock lens mount (the k-mount) like everybody else. There's an adapter to use pre k-mount lenses on a new Pentax.
Ah! I was not aware that Pentax had seen the light. Good news. I remember their bodies being first-rate and their optics, too. But that mount always did bug me.
Jay -- SOmething else I wanted to pass on -- to everybody, really. You may be aware a lot of top universities are putting course material online. Including MIT.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm
And one of their offerings is a REALLY GOOD course on photography.
Sort of a neat gem to share.
M
I already said my piece, but I'm thrilled to see I'm not the only one who likes the Pentax. First thing I did was buy and adapter for the early lenses.
And yes, auto-focus is over rated, mine is pretty much permenetly set on manual focus.
Good luck!
My advice is find a friend who is into photography, and buy the same as he has.
Most photogs are willing to let you play with their lenses, and that is the only way to make a decision on what will work for you.
I get my wife's hand me downs, since she does this for a living, and I'm currently using a Nikon D300S while she's moved on to the
D700. I shoot a D70-200 VR 2.8 while she has moved on to the VRII version.
BUT....the 3100 is a GREAT buy, with probably 90+ percent of the performance of the D700.
It's what I would start with if I wasn't as lucky as I am.
Costco sells them at the best prices I've seen, too.
Jay,
Lots of great advice here already and plenty of opinions. I would turn your question around and ask, "what do you intend to use it for?" Kind of like recommending a first gun for someone, w/o knowing it's intended purpose (carry, target, etc). A couple things to consider;
- Will you be shooting fast moving items?
- How far away will things typically be?
- Will you be shooting a lot indoors?
- Are you interested in or averse to carting around and using extra gear (tripod, flash, etc).
- What's your total budget?
- Are you interested in video? Many DSLRs now support this but it is often quite limited, ie: no auto-focus.
Sharing some of this hear is sure to help focus the advice your getting. It would certainly have a drastic effect on where I'd steer someone.
A few other resources to consider:
dpreview.com - Very good technical reviews.
photofocus.com - Great perspective on photography from pro Scott Bourne, but tailored for entry/enthusiast crows. If you load it in RSS and look through the old posts, you'll see he's got some practical advise based on answering Q's above. As well as a series of info for newbies.
For my $.02, I ended up with Sony as a gift. They bought our Minolta, so there's millions of lenses available on the used market. But Nikon and Canon are ~80% of the market. However, for the typical person, I wouldn't be afraid of one of the other makers (Sony, Pentax, etc). They do have some unique features and tend be strong on value. For instance Pentax and Sony have in-camera stabilization. And Sony's newest (A55 / A33) have a unique translucent mirror that allows the video to use "phase detection" for autofocus in video and live view modes that is significantly faster then other makers. But again, all this depends on your interest, budget, and long-term goals.
Go to a camera store a real one and not walmart. The right camera will sing to you.
Like picking a gun. Same thing. You can't really go wrong with anything made in the last year or two.
I'd be tempted to see if anything can use the glass mom g owns since that's where the real cost is. Just like guns the real cost is in the ammo, not the gun. Lens' are similar.
Post a Comment