I’ve never had a DSLR camera, but I’m thinking of getting one so our travel photos don’t look so crappy. I want to be able to print and hang our photos on the wall and not be ashamed of how amateurish they look. Plus, we’re going on our honeymoon next winter and we’re thinking about going to South Africa. I really want to be able to take some good photos while we’re there, but from what I’ve read my p&s camera isn’t going to cut it, especially when it comes to going on safari and taking pictures of far-off animals in poor light.
Obviously getting a new camera is only the first step. I’m willing to do some intensive studying on my own once I get it (I have a year to work on my skills!). I was thinking of the Nikon D3100 - it seems to be a nice entry-level DSLR camera that won’t bankrupt me. Would this be a decent choice?
You can’t go too far wrong with either of the big two.
Pentax and Sony also have good products, but I think the lens options opened up by canon or nikon is an advantage.
See what feels best in your hand, and go from there, but be aware you’ll probably want to upgrade your glass at some point, so you’ll become wedded to a specific mount.
The nifty fifty referred to above is a great, cheap prime lens.
The above is a link to an independent DSLR reviewing site. They picked an Olympus model as number one new introduction fro 2012.
Consider what kind of photography you want to use. An SLR is fantastic because your lenses, when taken care of, will last a lifetime and can be switched to a new (or second body). A good lens is a miracle of art and science. Nothing like your camera phone lens. So if you know that you want to take advantage of one of the major makers lens lines, then by all means choose that maker. All the major makers make good lenses, but some are spectacular. You can’t afford Leica or Carl Zeiss lenses for a DSLR, so go with Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax or Sony. I personally have a Canon T3i. I would go with the new model the T4i if buying new today. However, pretty much everyone other than Canon has sensors (the “film”) on the entry level cameras that can take pictures in darker environs than the consumer level Canon. No flash in a darkened restaurant at a party is just really cool and can be done easily nowadays.
When you buy a DSLR camera, by default you get a “kit lens” with it. This is just a general-purpose lens that has some zoom capability, included as part of the camera kit along with other accessories. You can buy a camera without a lens; this is advertised as “body only”. Good camera shops should allow you to select a different lens than the kit lens to go with your camera.
The advantage of the “nifty fifty” lens is that it is not too expensive, and it has a much wider maximum lens opening (aperture) than kit zoom lenses, allowing you to take pictures in dimmer light without needing flash. The relatively-inexpensive kit zoom lenses have narrower maximum apertures, and the maximum aperture available changes depending on the zoom setting. This can be inconvenient.
Many (most?) DSLRs can record HD video as well. My video-editing teacher mentioned today that a lot of videographers are going towards DSLR-style cameras for casual video capture rather than traditional camcorder-style cameras. I suspect this is due to the DSLRs having larger and better-made lenses. I’m not sure how that works with respect to the audio recording though. Presumably the DSLRs have microphones. (My camera is a used Nikon D70, the last version that didn’t record video.)
BTW, the “nifty fifty” lens mentioned upthread is around $250 in Canada. The 50mm is the focal length; the f/1.8 is the largest “F-stop”, a way of describing the largest aperture the lens is capable of.
The bolded part jumped out at me, so I thought I would bring some things up. The Nikon that your looking at, I am not familiar with since I shoot Canon, but sounds like one of the entry level crop cameras, similar to the Canon rebel series.
No matter the lens you get, the crop factor will lose on the wide side of the posted number, while you gain on the long end. So if the Lens is a 17-55 mm, then the actual wide side would be closer to 30 mm, and the long end is going to be about 80 mm.
You would of course be using the wide angle for shots of Kilimanjaro , and the long end for taking shots of animals that you would want a big distance between you and the animal,
As for taking the pics of the animals a long way off and in poor light, I would advise going to a zoo and trying out what you have, and then ponder the results. The professional shooters are normally using a 400-800 telephoto lens for wildlife to get those close up shots, and that glass will be expensive.
For that, you might want to look into rental glass, a number of places now offer professional glass for a decent price.
Truth. I started with my fixed 50mm f1.8 lens and still do a majority of my shooting with it. It’s great for learning the fundamentals, too. With a fixed lens you can practice shooting without worrying about a zoom lens that will change the f-stop on you while you zoom. (The lenses that don’t do that are a ton of money.) It’ll be easier to learn the interaction of aperture (f-stop), shutter speed, and ISO and how that effects the final image.
Actually the D80 was the last… the camera I got just as the D90 (with HD video) was coming out. Doh!
A lot of indie filmmakers do use DSLRs – they make shoulder rigs for them now so they handle pretty much the same as your standard video camera.
Oh, great place for inexpensive but good lenses, accessories (and camera bodies, but I agree that you should go to a shop and hold cameras in your hands): http://bhphoto.com/
Just note that it’s an orthodox Jewish company, so you can’t place orders from Friday evening to Saturday evening.
That was actually done by forum voting, so the caveat is that it was really more a popularity contest than an editorial decision. But it isn’t far outside the mainstream either - pretty much all reviewers have loved the OM-D EM-5 ( actual dpreview review ). It was something of a breakthrough camera for m4/3. At 2x crop an OM-D ( ~$950.00 ) + the cheaper 300mm option, the Panasonic 100-300 f4.0-5.6 ( ~$500.00), will get you to an effective 600mm without giving up much if any image quality or low light capability to most APS-C cameras with a consumer-grade 70-300mm.
Where m4/3 still fail big time is at continuous autofocus. Which means safari-wise, birds in flight are largely out of the question unless it is something big and slow like a pelican or something. But static subjects ( perching birds ) or slow-moving ( ambling ungulates ) should be fine. And you save a lot in weight, which has its own benefits. It is not, however, the cheapest option - the body is about twice the price of a D3100.
I hear this over and over, but it doesn’t really hold up. What lenses are we talking about? Yes, Canon and Nikon have a wider variety of $15000 500mm F4 lenses and other such exotic lenses, but the person who wants to buy an entry level DSLR isn’t concerned about that. They need to know about stuff like 18-55 lenses, 55-200 or 50-300 type lenses, maybe some 35mm or 50mm primes, and all manufacturers are going to have good selections of lenses in this sort of range.
Well, I’m not expecting to take National Geographic quality pictures, but just something better than what a p&s can produce. Like I said, I’m a total novice so I have a lot of learning to do.
ETA: I’m assuming that if I get to the stage where I want fancier lenses I’ll probably want a better camera anyway. Is this a correct assumption?
I didn’t even know I would have to buy a separate lens. :smack: