Photography peeps - I'm looking to buy a dSLR camera - recommendations?

[LadySharon]

Hi. I'm going on a trip at the end of June that may be once in a life time and I've been having fears of my digital point and shoot which I really love dieing on me. That and I think I want something with a good telephoto (going on an Alaskan cruise) I have a film slr and have been thinking about a digital one for some time now.

but I can't find anything that makes sense. My point in shoot does GREAT MACRO shots - but everything I've seen for dSLRs has the min focus (at widest lens setting) at 9" which isn't a macro shot IMHO.

Now I want to preface this by saying I don't want people to go "oh hey canon or nikon make great cameras" or something like that. I KNOW that already. I'm looking for a specific camera model recommendation - one that you have used or are currently using - so you KNOW that the camera does what I'm looking for.

Trust me I've done the google searches and looked at camera specs online. My next step is to go to a camera store - but I wanted to ask non-biased people because camera stores will push their fav brands that they want to sell you.


Here is what I'm looking for:

* price range, under 1k if possible - will go up to 1500 if needed to get options I want. Not a pro camera but not a cheapy one either.


*Camera kit with two lens - wide angle (18-20 to about 50-55 and a 50-200 or so telephoto).

* MUST: when camera is at widest angle and MACRO is on - can put camera 3-4 INCHS away from subject and take in focus picture. I see wonderful pics from cameras of flowers etc that look like they are that close, but then when I look at the specs it says the closest it can focus is 9" (unless - they aren't considering turning the "macro" function on when they make those specs?)

* Must - want a telephoto for long shots. Good optical zoom . I'd LOVE digital zoom as well - after all these are supposed to be digital cameras. But the one's I've looked at don't have it. ??? Maybe because it's SLR and not a built in lens? - so good zoom is must but digital zoom would be a nice to have.

* Must have a separate viewfinder other then the LCD screen. sometimes when your outside you can't see SQUAT in the screen. Also -I want the view finder to be THROUGH THE LENS like my film camera is. so no cutting part of the picture off because what I'm seeing is not really what the camera is taking. I know many dSLRs have this - BUT some I've tried in the past seem to do an either or. That is, I can use the LCD screen, but see nothing in the viewfinder. then I hit a button and it switches it. and the view finder is obviously just a mini lcd screen! (ie digital display)

NO I want something like my film camera. I think a few digital ones have this. This means if the camera is OFF and - I don't have a lens cap on... I can look through the view finder.

* MUST - A bulb setting. yes I know with digital leaving the bulb open for extended lengths of time will cause visual "noise" - but I want to have that option. not just settings that change the shutter speed (though that's a GIVEN with a SLR) - but a hold the shutter open as long as you want to bulb setting (you know for catching lightning, metors etc.)


note, certian things are assumed to be true of all SLRs digital or otherwise, if not, let me know.

* full manual and full auto controls, easy switch between the two. include auto focus if you want or manual focus.
* partial manual - that is camera pics app. opening, you pick speed or vice versa.

* ability to add a AC adapter
* ability to add various filters to lens.
* an area to plug in a remote shutter relise. If it's capible of wireless shutter release then it must have the option to do wired if the shooter wants that.
* macro (the flower)/portrate and landscape settings.
* panoramic.

would be nice if it was capable of small sizes as well. Seems like these big megapixil cams have lost the ability to shoot in web format (640 x 800 I think)

would be nice if it had video but not necc. If it does - it would be nice if you could take a video and edit it (with the camera) to make part of the video a printable picture. - (ie video lightning)

Ok that's all I can think of. Let me know what your camera(s) can do!

thanks!

- Sharon

 

[What]

My personal setup is a Nikon D40 w/ a Nikkor 60mm macro and a Sigma 150mm macro. Feel free to check out the photos on my Flickr, which is linked in my sig.

Both lenses are 1:1 and the Nikkor has a ~1.5" min focus distance and the Sigma ~8". Make sure to consider how you are planning to light things that you are shooting right next to the lens...

I personally, have not regretted for a second getting a longer macro lens to swap to from the smaller one instead of a telephoto or wideangle lens...and I would recommend both lenses to anyone who was into photography enough to warrant the expense. As for the actual camera body, it really is fairly unimportant, I would rather spend my money on good glass and a mediocre body than getting a top of the line body and crap lenses... And really above the 5mp threshold you will probably have plenty of pixels to crop down to whatever size you want w/o too much worry, check out the first from the 60mm below, its on a dime...

All of these were taken with the Sigma 150mm:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/i_am_subverted/2629047256/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/i_am_subverted/2629084990/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/i_am_subverted/2629044872/

An example of what the 60mm can do:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/i_am_subverted/2133080700/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/i_am_subverted/3077079644/

 

[DrAce]

I use a Nikon D60. It is good. I am not talented enough to be able to really traverse the rest of your concerns, however, it seems that you just need to talk to a sales person regarding choice of lens.

 

[Mister Internet]

I would say that you are doing your search a disservice by requiring "digital zoom". Digital zoom is "I didn't pay enough to get the telephoto capability I really want" zoom... it is a poor substitute for optical, and sort of negates your upgraded camera body quality. To get sharp, high-res telephoto, you will have to buy high quality glass, there's just no way around it. If you are fine with "ok" quality, don't bother getting an SLR, there are plenty of "super-zoom point and shoots" that will do what you want (Sony H-series, etc).

Also, the "macro capability" that you have has absolutely nothing to do with your camera body, really. That's totally a lens thing... how good a shot you can get, and how close you can focus (and at what ratio) is almost entirely dependent on how much you're willing to spend. Most good macro lenses are "prime" lenses (fixed focal distance), and usually vary from 50mm to 150mm (you can pay more for more, of course). I bought the "cheapo" f1.8/50mm plastic-body prime for my Canon EOS, and it does a pretty stellar job for $80.

The video models are going to put you over $1000 pretty quickly... the Nikon D90 is well over that in a two-lens kit, but the video is pretty nice. I shoot Canon myself, but it sounds like brand isn't important to you.

My advice? Wanting your whole list will be more expensive than you're willing to spend, so I would pick your top 3 "must-haves" and shop according to that. You're looking at a $800-$1500 kit plus at least an extra lens or two to get everything on your list, and it doesn't sound like $2K is in your budget... you may have to settle for less than you want in a couple of areas...

 

[codykrr]

i have a Nikon D80, i love it, but hate my glass. one thing i should have took into more consideration was glass price.

Canon- the body is more expensive upfront. but glass is alot cheaper, and there are cheaper brands that will fit the bodies.

to wear Nikon was cheaper upfront, but way more pricey in the long run with glass cost's.

for a brand new nikkor 105 mm macro lens is around 800 plus. used around 600.

so needless to say i dont have one yet.

also, like said, it might be advisable to steer clear of "kits" because you usually overpay, and get to 'ok' lenses.

just keep doing your homework and go to a camera only store for advice and purchase.

 

[Hamburglar]

Make sure you get a tripod or monopod especially if your glass doesn't end up where you want it to be.

Have you considered used or refurbs? I bought my D200 used a few years ago and it has been awesome. You can save some money and put it towards a good lens or two.

 

[GartenSpinnen]

Just say, "to hell with digital!", and then buy yourself a really nice, yet inexpensive film setup. You can get a couple nice camera bodies, loads of nice 'glass', and still take some beautiful shots.

This way you can have all the advantages of some of the nicer 'glass' capabilities, giving you the ability to be more diverse then the guys spending thousands of dollars to go digital; when they really do not have the cash to make it worth it. When I bought my dSLR I thought I got a pretty good deal on it. Ended up picking up a Nikon D40, which is my baby. I use it more often just because it is digital, but still have not been able to pick up decent glass because of the $$$.

If I really wanted to try and capture some nice shots, I would go with my film setup that I have bought several nice lenses off of E-Bay for next to nothing. They were a steal and are very nice lenses, especially when they can be had for under 100.00!

Learn the skill of doing everything with film, perfecting every aspect possible within the realm of film; then when you break out some bad ass film photos that look better than the guy with a 10k setup, you will get the respect and experience, as well as probably be better set when you do decide to make the digital plunge.

I have seen some damn nice shots taken with a disposable film camera. It comes down to people being passionate about what they are photographing, then using their skill and creativity to make it 'work'.

No?

 

[LadySharon]

Thanks for the replies. Some of what your saying is over my head, and I don't understand the terminology,. (by "glass" do you just mean "lens"?) I am more then a beginner but no where near pro. I’ve taken classes A LONG time ago when I got my film slr (see I already have a film camera)

Why is it that a standard wide angle lens is listed as 18-55mm (for example) But some of you say “macro 60mm and macro 150mm” Isn’t the larger the number the more zoom or telephoto you have? So I’m confused here. I don’t want to buy an $800 lens when my $120 point and shoot takes macros just fine thank you. I just expect even the BASIC slr camera to be able to do the same thing! I’m not asking for super macro where you can take a 1/8” spider and make it fill the entire field here. Just 3-5” from the target.

What is 1:1?

I’d prefer a “kit” just because it’s altogether… BUT I’m sure a good camera shop can put together a “kit” for me – that is a body with recommended lenses (18-55 and 50-200 or 50-300).


Ok here are my top things:

* Macro capability with the normal wide lens. If I set it at 18, AND turn on the flower capability I can take a pic 3-5” away.

If it’s based on the lens, would it be a setting on the lens instead of the camera? If so what’s the point of the camera’s that have the setting on the camera itself? Does it really do anything?
Oh and there IS a difference with my current camera – if I forget to turn macro on it doesn’t focus. So I know the macro setting changes *something* - shouldn’t that be the same for a dSLR?

* Telephoto optic zoom of at least 200 (2nd lens no brainer)

* BULB option. (along with options to set different speeds other then bulb)

* a THROUGH the lens REAL viewfinder – that works even with the camera off – telling me it doesn’t get some artificial feed.


(I’m dropping the movie and digital zoom options so don’t worry about thouse)


Now I expect all dslr cameras to come with:

A standard tripod hookup area
A pure manual setting
A pure auto setting
A “program” (or similar) setting
An AC adapter plug in. (Of course the actual adapter would be sold separately)
A remote shutter release plug in.


- Sharon.

 

[DrAce]

On many cameras, there are a few different settings. Like the 'man running' (sometimes a 'car'), the 'flower', the 'mountain', the 'person in a hat, with a flash' etc. There is more to taking a picture of a flower versus a sport picture than meets the eye.

Yes, it involves the lenses to focus properly. But a good sports photo CAN'T be taken with a slow shutter speed. Similarly, a picture of something like a flower, needs a certain ISO and shutter speed.

That's what the little dial is fiddling with. Pre-set ranges for things like shutter, ISO, and focal depth... (he said, not REALLY knowing, but being fairly certain).

 

[blacktara]

Two words of advice.

Avoid digital zoom - though with a limited budget it may be a tradeoff you have to make

Second - dont skimp on glass. Get the best quality glass you can get in your price range, not the longest telephoto or widest wide angle you can afford.

 

[What]

(by "glass" do you just mean "lens"?)

Yes.

Why is it that a standard wide angle lens is listed as 18-55mm (for example) But some of you say “macro 60mm and macro 150mm” Isn’t the larger the number the more zoom or telephoto you have?

I believe, and I just dont feel like double checking, but... Those two numbers, 18 and 55, are the range of focal lengths that lens can traverse, whereas with a prime lens, like the 60mm, it works at one fixed focal length, 60mm from the image sensor.

So I’m confused here. I don’t want to buy an $800 lens when my $120 point and shoot takes macros just fine thank you. I just expect even the BASIC slr camera to be able to do the same thing! I’m not asking for super macro where you can take a 1/8” spider and make it fill the entire field here. Just 3-5” from the target. What is 1:1?

I found this very nice little quote here, it is worth a read for you.

A macro lens is defined as one that is capable of producing an image on the sensor that is the same size or larger than the actual object being photographed. This is expressed as a reproduction ratio of 1x or 1:1. This life-size "reproduction ratio" should not be confused with lens magnification.

You might think your current camera takes macro photos just fine, but I will guarantee you, if you took a photo with my camera and the 60mm macro lens vs. your camera, the one taken with the dSLR(assuming it was properly focused and such) will be far sharper and have a higher image quality. Shooting in raw ends me up with a 4096 x 2723 image when converted to jpg, that allows for a lot of room to crop, if you wanted to. You might not feel a need to be able to take photos like that, but a lot of us do.

If it’s based on the lens, would it be a setting on the lens instead of the camera? If so what’s the point of the camera’s that have the setting on the camera itself? Does it really do anything?
Oh and there IS a difference with my current camera – if I forget to turn macro on it doesn’t focus. So I know the macro setting changes *something* - shouldn’t that be the same for a dSLR?

On a dSLR all that does is tell the camera to use a different standard for determining the shutter speed and aperture. On your point-and-shoot that loads an entirely different image focusing algorithm(which it might do on the SLR, if its an AF lens) and searches for the closest things to the front of the camera, with an SLR and manual focus you can choose exactly the area you want to focus on.

Now I expect all dslr cameras to come with:
A standard tripod hookup area
A pure manual setting
A pure auto setting
A “program” (or similar) setting
An AC adapter plug in. (Of course the actual adapter would be sold separately)
A remote shutter release plug in.

As far as I know, almost all current bodies have all those features.

A random link for you too, I have learned a lot from his articles and his advice hasnt screwed me up yet, so... http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

 

[Venom]

LadySharon,

I would recommend you get a Canon 40D with the 17-55, and 28-135mm IS USM kit lenses.

The 28-135mm has a macro capability which is quite good, and it also has an image stabilizer which compensates for handshake when shooting without a tripod. This is especially important for low-light, and macro work. This lens also has an ultrasonic motor (USM) which gives it very quick focusing.

The camera body itself is a 10MP CMOS, with very low-noise and high dynamic range (great for low-light shooting, as it will capture a range of shading detail, without becoming grainy). It also has a built-in sensor cleaning unit, which shakes dust off the sensor.

This is a semi-pro / advanced amateur camera. The build quality is very high, and so is the image produced. Here are some reviews:


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/eos_40d-review/


And yes, I know there's a 50d out now. The reason I recommend the 40d over the 50d, is that the 40d actually has better noise resistance at high ISO sensitivity. Not a whole lot changed between the 40 to the 50, other than the sensor going from 10MP to 15MP. But, the 15MP technology was inferior to the 10MP sensor...so it doesn't produce as sharp and un-grainy an image. For macro photography, you want the absolute best resistance to "noise" ( grain and color mottle that comes into the picture are higher film/ ISO sensitivitY ) that you can get. Better noise resistance will allow you to use higher sensitivities without losing picture quality, thereby adapting to low-light without sacrificing the quality of your image. The 40d is better at this than the 50d.

 

[Hamburglar]

I forgot about dpreview.com ... That is an excellent resource to compare digital cameras. I kit lens with macro will do just fine, however, depending on things like available light, shutter speed, depth of field I would still recommend a tripod. Image Stabilization lenses are great, but a tripod insures extremely sharp details especially with the slower speed kit lenses.

Generally, the lower the number in front of the lens name the better it is depending on the maker of course. Example: f2.8 75-200 lens is better than a f5.6 75-200 lens because it allows more light in. They are usually much more expensive though. Usually, the bigger the number in front of a lens the more you need a tripod. Image stabilization really does help with this as mentioned.

One important thing to keep in mind is that most of the cameras you are considering do not have a full frame sensor. They are actually a little bit smaller, but many people like this because it stretches their lenses out farther. With a smaller sensor using a 80-200mm lens would be like using a 120-300mm lens on a camera with a full frame sensor. This is just an example though.. sometimes different makers have slightly different size sensors.

 

[Nerri1029]

I think LadySharon is asking some of the right questions and because of her inexperience with DSLR or SLR for that matter, is asking some wrong questions and making some wrongful assumptions.

The DSLR body will have lots of pre-programmed abilities. However how it focuses, and overall image are almost completely dependent on the lens.

I bought a SONY A300 - it came with OK lenses (made in China). I quickly purchased aftermarket lenses with better glass and immediately noticed better pictures.
Now it's up to me honing my skills.

With old lens, still better than any point and shoot:

True 1:1 macro is NOT CHEAP with a DSLR

I'm using a lesser lens but was able to get decent pics, better than my superzoom's macro function.

However I've seen Tarcan's photgraphs, his macro lens cost more than my original camera package. And due to far better skills and far better equipment his photographs are amazing.

 

[LadySharon]

Wow. thanks for all the input.

Ok I admit something here - I waited until the last minute. I WAS going to buy a house first then look into a good digital. But I can't find a house I like. Now suddenly this vacation is upon me and I guess I'd like to go on it with something a bit more then a point and shoot - and I don't want to mess with film.

Bottom line - I'm thinking of going to the store this weekend. So I can't order online (don't want to anyway as I want to try out the camera in the store before buying it)
and I'm limited to where I can go.

I don't want to go to a big store like best buy or ultimate electronics. And when I did a camera search in the online yellowpages well I got lots of pawn stores and places that develop pics. I've gone to wolf/ritz camera in the past - but I don't really know how good it is. Other stores are too far away. This leaves Mike's camera

I wanted to try Mike's camera - because I thought it had a big selection. however, the lenses What listed they do not have (at least in a search of their products. and they also don't apperently have the canon 40d. (they have accesories for it but not the camera - they have the 50d) I am going to call them on my lunch to see if they carry stuff in stock that they don't have on the page.

Right now I have decided to buy the camera that comes the closest and the two basic lens that I've mentioned before (I want a telephoto that goes out to at least 200).

Then I'll "save up" for one of the other macro lenses (I'm ok with ordering it) for the future.

Admidadly I have more then enough money to buy a REALLY good camera - but most of that is supposed to go to a down payment. So I've self restricted my budget. I decided I can ad lenses later.

So with that - what would I have the most compatiblity with? Canon? Nikon? sony?

Btw this is what Mike's camera's have as far as canon dsl:

http://mikescamera.com/products.htm...ch][price][min]=&catalog[search][price][max]=

I'm definatly saving some of the info in this thread for future reference.

Thanks much for your help and patiance!

- Sharon

 

[DrAce]

For the record, there are a LOT of photography and camera threads floating about on the Watering Hole.

 

[Venom]

LadySharon,

40D bodies are all over Ebay, Amazon, etc for about $600 used. People who buy this level of camera almost always take great care of them, so I would not be shy about buying used/ refurbished camera bodies. I bought my own DSLR refurbished, and it's worked perfectly for the last 3 years. But, if you don't like the thought of a used camera, there are also plenty of brand new items online for sale also.

If you're planning to save up for a more expensive model than the 40d/50d, I'd recommend either the Canon 7D, or the Nikon D300 / D300s . You couldn't go wrong with either.

 

[Hamburglar]

I would try both cameras out at the store... Power them up if you can and have the sales people walk you through basic functions. Canon and Nikon are both great cameras, however, I really didn't like the controls on the Canon as much as I did on the Nikon. Take a look at both and see which one you like better. You also don't have to stay with Canon or Nikon lenses. There are other makers like Sigma that make good lenses that will work with those camera makers. They are usually a little cheaper too. The sales team should be able to help you depending on who they have contracts with. Many of the stores around here only sell certain brands due to agreements.

As far as compatibility Nikon and canon probably have the most accessories made for them, especially from other makers. They are usually easier to find/more often in stock than other brands.

 

[LadySharon]

Dr Ace: I'm not surprised. In fact when I first joined the boards I put up a thread in chat or questions similar to this - but it disappeared. I'll bet it was moved here. I didn't know about this board then.

Venom: The guy at mike's camera disagrees with you. He told me the 50d
was the replacement to the 40d and was better. :shrug generally when there is differing opinions I take things with a grain of salt.

Also – the guy says that “sigma” lenses are lower quality (he didn’t say the “c” word but it kinda came across in his tone) and the store did not carry them.

Anyway I did a search and came up with these as what I could afford that didn’t seem too different. (Olympus didn’t seem to use the same card type I like – sd) Some of these are kits and some are body only – but I was really trying to compare the bodies.

I noticed that the two main canon’s the canon rebel and the canon 50d vary greatly in price. The 50d body is more then I want to spend on a body only if I’m going to spend 200-500 a piece on basic lens’ but the rebel “kit” seems way too low for a body and two lens.

What do you think of these?:
http://mikescamera.com/spec_sheet.html?catalog[name]=Canon-EOS-Digital-Rebel-XS-outfit-%2818-55mm-EF-S-IS-and-75-300mm-EF-III%29-black-Digital-cameras&catalog[product_guids][0]=677cb440-4143-46a9-8218-5f08eebd7df4

http://mikescamera.com/spec_sheet.html?catalog[name]=Nikon-D5000-Digital-SLR-%28body-only%29-Digital-cameras&catalog[product_guids][0]=c044c27b-c2fb-4a9d-8a0d-e1325eaa0064

http://mikescamera.com/spec_sheet.html?catalog[name]=Nikon-D90-%28body-only%29-Digital-cameras&catalog[product_guids][0]=07acc8f5-65ea-450a-adcf-cc4f01699405

http://mikescamera.com/spec_sheet.html?catalog[name]=Nikon-D5000-Double-Lens-SLR-Kit-%28AF-S-DX-Nikkor-18-55mm-VR-and-55-200mm-VR%29-Digital-cameras&catalog[product_guids][0]=4bd79047-941a-4037-8ede-e35130f49ee8

I’m looking for the camera that has the most versatility as far as compatible lenses.

Also, something that bothered me… I looked at lenses separate, and these two canon lenses have the mm range I want but seem to indicate there is not much aperture range. But, aren’t they the same lenses that come with the rebel kit? And the kit shows a greater aperture range. So, is the range a typo here?

http://mikescamera.com/spec_sheet.html?catalog[name]=Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f%2F3.5-5.6-IS-Lenses&catalog[product_guids][0]=1d2627f1-2ef6-4785-9a5f-8eb5a2b0cdb7

http://mikescamera.com/spec_sheet.html?catalog[name]=Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-F%2F4-5.6-IS-Lenses&catalog[product_guids][0]=e0c7d9da-4f4a-4764-b8f9-67781e9a00b6
Thanks much again.

- Sharon

 

[Hamburglar]

You have to be careful with sales people... They often will give you only the advice and opinions that would make you want to choose something they have in stock. Sigmas are very good quality. Photography magazines are filled with great images taken with sigma lenses.

About your last question... That isn't the aperture range for the lens. That is what the aperture would be at the given focal length. Your first example would be F3.5 at 18mm and F5.6 at 55mm. What that means is that you can't open up the lens any more than 5.6 when zoomed out to 55mm. You could still set the camera to F22 if you want, but your exposure would be much longer. Basically, the smaller the F# the more light that is getting into your camera.

There are hundreds of lenses that would work with the cameras you listed. Lenses made by Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. I don't think one of those cameras will stand out as far as versatility with lenses go because as long as the lens has that particular cameras mount.. It will work with that camera.

dpreview.com actually gave the 40D a slightly higher review than the 50D and considers it more of a "sister camera than a replacement"

Nikon D5000 review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/

D90 review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/

Rebel XS review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1000d/

You can also compare cameras side by side on there.