The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
DSLR cameras?
billwill
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I have a two month trip coming up next summer to China.
I will definitely want pictures. Nice pictures, preferably. However, my experience with photography is limited, and I'm not quite sure what to look for. I'm doing a lot of reading on it but I figured some real-world suggestions would be great.
Two years ago I bought a ~300 dollar camera and went crazy. I spent two weeks with it as Mr. Artist and loved it. Unfortunately, I was unable to justify the cost in relation to how my life was at that moment in time, so I returned it. I'm not sharing this as a "oh I know photographies now back off wurld" declaration. I'm just saying, I know I like taking pictures, and I want to get into the more advanced stuff. I was just limited in the past.
What should I look at when purchasing a camera and how much should I expect to spend? It seems like the two best companies are Canon and Nikon. I'm seeing some models on Amazon between 500 and 800 dollars (depending on if I were to bundle a bigger lens). I know there are vastly more expensive options, but I assume this is a fine price point for someone like me? The thing is, I don't know which model to look at. Everything in that price range has fantastic reviews on Amazon, but each also has its own choir of critics and it's hard to filter the actual important criticisms from the ones that aren't pertinent to someone like me.
So, yeah. Any tips or advice would be great. Thanks.
I will definitely want pictures. Nice pictures, preferably. However, my experience with photography is limited, and I'm not quite sure what to look for. I'm doing a lot of reading on it but I figured some real-world suggestions would be great.
Two years ago I bought a ~300 dollar camera and went crazy. I spent two weeks with it as Mr. Artist and loved it. Unfortunately, I was unable to justify the cost in relation to how my life was at that moment in time, so I returned it. I'm not sharing this as a "oh I know photographies now back off wurld" declaration. I'm just saying, I know I like taking pictures, and I want to get into the more advanced stuff. I was just limited in the past.
What should I look at when purchasing a camera and how much should I expect to spend? It seems like the two best companies are Canon and Nikon. I'm seeing some models on Amazon between 500 and 800 dollars (depending on if I were to bundle a bigger lens). I know there are vastly more expensive options, but I assume this is a fine price point for someone like me? The thing is, I don't know which model to look at. Everything in that price range has fantastic reviews on Amazon, but each also has its own choir of critics and it's hard to filter the actual important criticisms from the ones that aren't pertinent to someone like me.
So, yeah. Any tips or advice would be great. Thanks.
I hate you and you hate me.
billwill on
0
Posts
"What you want to do" means what types of photos and in what conditions. For example, if you plan to take photos in very low light conditions, you may be more likely to choose a DSLR because it will have less noise in low light and because you can buy a very fast lens for it (an aperature number that is low like 2.8 or 1.4 is called "fast."). If all you want is snapshots in broad daylight, then you might just prefer a nice point and shoot camera.
Do you want to take time to learn about your camera and what the settings mean? Are you willing to look through the camera as opposed to looking at the digital screen when taking a photo? Do you plan to make large prints of the photos later? These are all questions you might ask yourself to decide between a DSLR and a point and shoot first before getting into brand.
When you do think about brand, consider that choosing one brand is more about the set of lenses you want to choose from (if you buy something with interchangeable lenses like a dslr) than the camera.
Yes, I'd love to take time to learn about the camera. I intend on picking whatever I get up by Christmas at the latest, allowing me ~6 months time to explore its many uses. And I'd prefer to look through the camera rather than using the digital screen (but I'm sure I'd also use the latter for more casual photos). I don't really intend on making large prints, though.
Depends what you will be using it for, how much carrying you'll have to do, how available charging is, etc.
I have a Sony Nex, which is a very fancy point and shoot... but when I compare it to the image quality of my Canon 50D DSLR, it feels like a camera phone.
I'm not even sure where to begin.
Yeah, but how many people are going to lug around an assortment of lenses, a tripod, filters, speed flashes, etc. and so forth on a vacation? Also, your 50D is almost double the OP's proposed budget for just the body. I see this in bicycle threads a lot too - you guys have tons of great advice to give, but sometimes forget that the OP might not be looking to make this hobby their new way of life. All that being said, the Sony Nex that you mentioned might be a very nice happy medium for the OP to consider.
Don't think about models just yet. Think about lenses and what you have money for. What you are buying when you buy a camera body is actually that maker's lenses. You may change the camera, but you'll probably never change brands because then all those lenses you had for your first camera would be useless.
Don't forget about Pentax. They don't get a lot of press and I confess to not having used them, but I know someone who bought Pentax and they got a lot of bang for their buck. Since they aren't name brand, they have to be more compatible, which is a very good thing.
Cannon's bottom end lenses tend to be cheaper than Nikon lenses, but Cannon class L is the good quality sexy stuff and it costs just as much if not more than Nikon lenses. Peruse some lenses, think about what you'd like. You might want to give yourself a quick crash course in cameras so you know what those numbers mean. Shutter speed, aperture and ISO (and the penalty for upping your ISO) is what you want to look at in general, and specifically for night photography. You may want a tripod too to hold the camera still while the shutter is sitting wide open for a couple seconds.
As far as "DSLRs are big and bulky," that is true, to a point. My D90 isn't especially heavy though it IS bigger than most point and shoots. It does great street photography and will fit in a small bag (don't use a camera bag unless you want to advertise you've got something to steal) with a prime lens (a lens that does not zoom.)
Another thing to research is "full frame" cameras. You probably don't need one, but you should know the difference. It will also make a big difference when you go to buy lenses because of the "crop factor" if you do not choose a full frame camera. With my D90 a 24mm lens functions as roughly a 35mm lens (the one we typically associate with a "regular" camera view) because it is not full frame. The camera magnifies the image to get it the size of a frame (think if you were looking at a negative, that is one "frame.").
Hope this helps.
In terms of Canon dSLRs, Canon just released the T4i and they're discontinuing the T2i so you might be able to find decent deals for the T2i in stores as they try to clear out stock. The T3i and T4i do have improvements over the T2i but the T2i is still a very capable camera that would suit your needs and the improvements aren't necessary (although they are stil useful). Since you specified low light shots, I would advise that you find a T2i kit with the basic kit lens (18-55mm) and then pick up the 50mm f1.8, which would help you out greatly for those low light shots and is the cheapest lens that Canon makes. The Canon T3 is cheaper than the T2i due to lower specs. If you can't afford the T2i, then go for the T3. Getting either the T2i or T3 with the kit and additional lens should keep you under 800 dollars if you look for sales.
For Nikon, I've heard great things about the Nikon D3100 as Nikon has included lots of instructions into the UI so it's very beginner-friendly. The D3200 is the successor to the D3100 so once again, stores are probably trying to clear out stock of the D3100 so there may be good deals. The same lens advice for the Canon applies here as well. Get a kit with the 18-55mm and then the 50mm f1.8. Again, going this route should keep you under 800 dollars.
If you have no brand loyalty, go to the local Best Buy and pick up the cameras and shoot some practice shots. You may prefer the ergonomics of one brand over the other. And keep an eye on the classifieds, there's always a lot of people that want to upgrade to the newest camera.
Here are some samples I took with my S100:
Skypilots
Treasure Peak
Rock Ring
I actually "downgraded" from a Canon Rebel XTi DSLR to the S100 for the sake of size. A DSLR will certainly produce better images but at the same time you're kind of wasting your money if you don't plan to sink some money into glass.
Or get a large sensor compact (G1x, Sony Rx100) and familiarize yourself with it. You'll stay in budget if you do that.
I host a podcast about movies.
Anyway, I guess I don't need a DSLR. So I should be looking at something like this?
When considering taking good exposure, all you need to think about is light. If you have ideal lighting conditions (say outside in daylight) then a $2K L-series lens may not be much of an advantage over the $200 kit lens (unless you want to dive into subjects like bokeh, where I agree there's a difference, but most people don't give a shit really since they aren't trying to sell prints). It's when lighting conditions are not ideal (indoor sporting event, or an indoor social event) that you'll really value the speed of expensive glass. This difference can be attenuated by using a hotshoe flash (another $200-300), but it does make your rig more "serious" (I've found generally that pulling out the DSLR with large objective and speedlite makes your subjects more uncomfortable)
If you have no desire to swap out lenses I'd take a close look at a large sensor compact before even investigation a DSLR. If you are trying to look for a single metric to distinguish between various P&S cams I would look at the physical area of the sensor, bigger = better. Also more manual control dials means you keep more manual adjustment within quick access. Check out DPReview for camera reviews. I started exclusively in P-mode and AF< and now I pretty much exclusively shoot full manual and manual focus if using a DSLR.
The largest determinant in the next smartphone I buy is the capabilities of the camera, as I ALWAYS have my phone and can whip it out to take a shot. P&S is a bit more bulky and requires me to think about carrying it, even moreso with a DSLR.
My original response was geared towards someone who is sure they want to jump into the SLR photography, and back when I was taking classes (before Digital Photography was a thing) your kit was a 35mm film camera and a normal prime (50mm). You shot dozens and dozens of rolls of film with this setup to understand how to shoot. And you spent even more time in the darkroom developing to fix shots or make more arty shit.
Edit: The camera you listed has incredible reach. 42X optical zoom is ... excessive; it's impossible to hand hold on the long end. A 3-5X optical zoom will probably be fine for most general shooting. Tiny sensors do allow you to build in more optical zoom in a small package. You're going to have more noise on a sensor with that kind of pixel density.
If youre not looking at DSLRs anymore, i suggest the Sony Nex.
When I was comparing brands, the Nikon D5100 and the Canon T3i seemed to be neck and neck for being great starting DSLRs
However, as others have been saying, there are a lot of "point & shoot" cameras that take good pictures. The advantages to P&S are primarily the size, the cost, and the fact that you can usually get a wider range on the lens compared to a DSLR kit lens or other zoom. Now that I have a DSLR, it means that if I want to take it with me I have to commit to carrying a bag of some kind. I can't just slip it into a pocket or have it squeeze in with other crap -- my bags have to be dedicated largely to the camera, or I have to plan on simply wearing it around my neck the entire time.
If you buy used, you can get a nice DSLR and a good lens for under $500. What's your ideal budget, and what's your ideal storage/carrying situation? Do you see yourself buying more lenses, or do you just want to take pictures?
P&S can take very nice pictures but a DSLR will generally always win for improved low light performance, primarily in the color depth and clarity range. Similarly, a DSLR will generally take pictures that are crisper and contain more detail on a sunny day compared to a P&S. However, on Facebook, these details will largely be lost. So, the last question is what you plan to do with these pictures once you have them. If you get an amazing picture while in China, would you potentially frame it?
A lot of what makes a good picture has to do with the photographer, not the camera. Some pictures are simply very hard to take, or impossible to achieve, using a P&S, especially pictures with a very thin depth-of-field, and the presence of specialty lenses gives a DSLR more adaptability. But knowing the rule of thirds, getting low/close, or effective framing, can get you an excellent picture using a P&S.
A DSLR with a stock lens will take significantly better photos than a normal compact digital camera.
Caveats:
I'll be bring my Saddleback Classic Briefcase with me (it's a large) so I should have enough room to bring it with me on day trips and whatnot (though the strap literally bruised me during the first week, it's broken in and now the saddleback is insanely comfortable).
I'm leaning towards a DSLR because I want the option of getting more lens down the line. I'm willing to maybe get an extra lens to see if it's a better fit, but I'd be getting more glass (look at me with the lingo) after the trip. The reasoning being 1) I don't want to carry all that around and 2) I would primarily want a big lens to zoom but I'll be taking a three day tour of North Korea and they prohibit and lenses bigger than 150mm (and though there are some smaller, I'd rather be well within my range).
As for models, how does the Canon T3i sound?
I'm so jealous! I want to do this soooo badly. When are you coming back from NK?
Also, the Canon T3i is a fantastic choice.
I'm hoping to travel there on a tour from August 24-26 of 2013. It's not much time but I'll get a quick tour of Pyongyang and I'll get to see one of their mass games (which should be pretty epic, since it'll be the 60th anniversary of their war). Of course, it's all dependent on being able to get a visa for it and nothing bad happening with North Korea between now and then which would cause them to further restrict their tourism, but I'm keeping my hopes up!
If it works out, I'll definitely take pictures for you all.
On Amazon, they have the T3i with either the 18-55mm lens for $669 or the 18-135mm lens for $858. Can someone explain the pros and cons to each?
They also have a few promotions with the camera, like a free 16gb SD card and whatnot, but a big promotion is I can get this lens for $150 off, bringing it down to $50. So that's something to consider.
Help me! xD
The 18-55 (29-88 35mm equivalent) is a typical "walking around zoom" meaning it's a good range of zoom for general purpose photography. This general range is very popular.
The 18-135 (29-216 35mm equivalent) would probably have similar image quality as the 18-55, though likely more distortion when fully zoomed at 135. You'll have more range (about a 6X optical zoom vs. the around 3X optical zoom you see on the 18-55). There's a good argument for more range, cause when you need it no amount of cropping will really compensate, but you should find out if you need it.
The 55-250 (88-400 35 mm equivalent) is a tele zoom, and covers zoom range of around 3X (at 55) and around 11.5X (at 250). This may be difficult to hand hold at 250.
Don't get the 55-250. Stick to either the 18-55 or 18-135. Honestly I'd probably stick to the cheapest kit lens (18-55) and just start shooting until you figured out what you want in a lens (what type of picture-taking you fancy). Maybe it will be sufficient. Maybe you want the same range just faster. Swapping out glass because you bought it discounted initially but really would prefer something else is expensive.
Is there no way you can get to a physical camera store and play with the camera and both lenses to find out what you want?
If that's a separate promotion, it's an ok add on for 50 bucks. If it would be your only lens, you don't want it. My canon 7d came with a 28-135 (not my first choice, but it was a black Friday deal that made the lens free for all intents etc). The 28-135 is a decent GP lens, but the 18 would allow to shoot slightly wider and slightly closer to people. I also have this 40mm and I use it quite a bit - i often leave it on my camera, actually.
You'll probably end up with one of these as well. It catches a lot of hate for being generally a cheap lens, but it does deliver a low stop at a good price, making it really good for casual indoor shooting in particular.
You might consider a wide angle lens of some sort to get really giant landscapes. A full frame sensor (the one thing my 7d lacks) is a help there as well. offbrand glass is scary, but this tamronis something people mention as an alternative to spending another 350-4 on the canon model(I do not own it, am not a lawyer, etc)
Lenses are basically crack. Beautiful, frustrating, optically and mechanically perfect crack.
You should probably run now.
If you don't - since you're allowing yourself six months, that's enough time to even take like, a community college class, which might be a good idea.
I host a podcast about movies.