What DSLR should I get?

In My Humble Opinion
41

[QUOTE=diggleblop]
pulykamell and everyone else with advice, thanks a lot. Also, how do you feel about photoshop and/or other adobe programs to adjust your pictures afterwards? Should that even be necessary with a high quality camera or is it usually always needed?

Because I even tried to use Photoshop CS to adjust some of these pictures and THAT didn’t even help. But I ask because I’m curious about higher quality cameras, not the one I had.
[/QUOTE]

Like pulykamell and beowulff, I usually adjust my pictures (exposure, white balance, and color saturation are typical). I do in the computer because I’d rather concentrate on the shot rather than the mechanics of the shot.

Please also remember what’s important: the picture. It doesn’t matter what kind of camera you use as long as you can get photos out of it that you like. Taking pictures shouldn’t be a chore. Don’t be shamed into dSLR if you can get great shots out of a point-and-shoot camera.

42

Here’s CNet’s DSLR buying guide:

43

[QUOTE=pulykamell]
That’s going to be way (one and a half to two stops) overexposed in broad daylight, if by broad daylight you mean full sun (EV 16). In those conditions, I would start at around f/16, maybe a third or two thirds more open (f/13, f/14).

And don’t be ashamed in using any of the automatic modes. I personally shoot around 95% in manual, but I know great shooters who live in aperture priority or even program modes, but they know almost intuitively when to apply exposure compensation based on situations where they know the camera will be fooled.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, sorry, you’re right…I mis remembered…f/8 125 is the base sertngs for indoors, flash, right? (generally I rely on what the light meter’s telling me, anyway)

44

[QUOTE=Unintentionally Blank]
Sorry, sorry, you’re right…I mis remembered…f/8 125 is the base sertngs for indoors, flash, right? (generally I rely on what the light meter’s telling me, anyway)
[/QUOTE]

My base indoor flash setting is more like 1/30 @ f/4. (It varies a lot depending on the darkness of the indoor room. This weekend I had settings as slow as 1/8 @ f/2.8) My goal is to have enough ambient light in the photo to bleed through so your backgrounds aren’t completely black (as they would be at f/8 1/125.) I would only be at f/8 1/125 if I wanted the flash to be the only light source visible in my photo.

It takes some practice knowing how slow you can push your exposure without causing unpleasant ghosting in your image from too much ambient light exposure.

45

So, I’ve decided to make the plunge and go for a Canon XTs. The kit lens adds $100 to the base price. I like the versatility of a zoom, and I know I want a somewhat wide angle. I’d prefer to divert that $100 difference to a “good lens” rather than fork out for the kit lens and then buy a “good lens” afterwards.

This will be my 3d digital camera, but my first DSLR. I love my Panasonic Lumix (size, features), but want mainly the depth of field control and exposure control offered by a DSLR. On the Lumix, I find the 28 mm (equivilent) wide angle indispensable, although I find plenty of occasion to use the zoom.

I think I’ve been learning a lot while investigation “which” system to pursue, although I’m fuzzy on some of the math. I’d like to preserve to 28 mm equivilent, but what’s that mean for this camera? The kit lens at the widest is 18 mm, but it’s only 35 mm equivilent?

I’ve also learned that “faster” lenses are better, meaning wide apertures (lower f/stop numerical values). In wide-angle, I’d like to take good, non-flash, indoor, incandescent or fluorescent light shots, so speed is an issue?

Having the camera and the appropriate lens will be a great learning tool as I put it into practice. But I want to be prepared rather than disappointed that “I can’t do that.”

So, any suggestions for a better-than-kit lens at an incremental cost of no more than $300 (so, about $400 or so by not taking the kit lens)? Reasonably wide angle, sufficiently fast f/stop, reasonable zoom. Since this camera isn’t IS, any lenses that meet what I’m asking for have XTs compatible image stabilization?

I’ve also heard that I should be considering a “prime lens” in favor of a zoom, but I do want the versatility. Right? I still have the Lumix for snapshots/vacations; I’m going DSLR to create photographs rather than snapshots.

46

Relatively speaking, prime lenses aren’t that expensive. I’d start out doing what you’re doing (non kit lens) and be a little conservative. Get a XX-200mm lens, instead of an xx-300 lens. I think you’ll find the shorter zoom lens does a better job…THEN investigate photo stitching software for anything it won’t handle.

Get the workhorse lens first, then in a month or two of playing around, re-evaluate if you want that prime lens.

47

[QUOTE=Balthisar]
So, I’ve decided to make the plunge and go for a Canon XTs. The kit lens adds $100 to the base price. I like the versatility of a zoom, and I know I want a somewhat wide angle. I’d prefer to divert that $100 difference to a “good lens” rather than fork out for the kit lens and then buy a “good lens” afterwards.

This will be my 3d digital camera, but my first DSLR. I love my Panasonic Lumix (size, features), but want mainly the depth of field control and exposure control offered by a DSLR. On the Lumix, I find the 28 mm (equivilent) wide angle indispensable, although I find plenty of occasion to use the zoom.

I think I’ve been learning a lot while investigation “which” system to pursue, although I’m fuzzy on some of the math. I’d like to preserve to 28 mm equivilent, but what’s that mean for this camera? The kit lens at the widest is 18 mm, but it’s only 35 mm equivilent?

I’ve also learned that “faster” lenses are better, meaning wide apertures (lower f/stop numerical values). In wide-angle, I’d like to take good, non-flash, indoor, incandescent or fluorescent light shots, so speed is an issue?

Having the camera and the appropriate lens will be a great learning tool as I put it into practice. But I want to be prepared rather than disappointed that “I can’t do that.”

So, any suggestions for a better-than-kit lens at an incremental cost of no more than $300 (so, about $400 or so by not taking the kit lens)? Reasonably wide angle, sufficiently fast f/stop, reasonable zoom. Since this camera isn’t IS, any lenses that meet what I’m asking for have XTs compatible image stabilization?

I’ve also heard that I should be considering a “prime lens” in favor of a zoom, but I do want the versatility. Right? I still have the Lumix for snapshots/vacations; I’m going DSLR to create photographs rather than snapshots.
[/QUOTE]

There’s an XT, an XTi, and an XSi, but I’m not familiar with an XTs. The new XSi comes with a new version of the 18-55 kit lens that now includes IS. The old version of that lens that came with the earlier models doesn’t, and is generally not a well-regarded lens either.

The Canon XT series has a 1.6x effective focal length modifier, so the kit 18-55 is 29mm equivalent. For what you’re looking for, I’d stick with the kit lens plus a fast prime such as the EF 35mm f/2 at around $240. You won’t find a $400 zoom lens any faster than f/3.5 or so, and you won’t find a zoom faster than f/2.8 at all. And yet you need to get down to f/2 or f/1.4 to have any hope of decent indoor shots with no flash.

48

[QUOTE=diggleblop]
Ok, as you can see here, the pics I took didn’t have great color at all, nor did they have great light. I used different lighting each time too. The first pic isn’t really all that bad, just not bright enough. It was a lot brighter in “real life” when I took the first pic. The camera just wouldn’t capture it.

Anyways, I think I may take a look at the Rebel or the Nikon 300D or D300 or whatever.

Here are six of the pics I took with the Sony A200, and again, I’m not a pro phtographer, but I know damn well that the camera should’ve taken better pics than these with the stock equipment I had. You shouldn’t have to do THAT much work to get great pics. 3rd one is too dark, 4th one is too bright. It just varied too much for me:







[/QUOTE]

You should check the white balance settings on your dslr and the colour settings. I’m using the D80 and the colour is set to vivd. Also, tweaking the white balance to increase the warmth of the colours helps with saturation. To avoid having the sky wash out as in the picture with the horse you probably should underexpose a little and try not to shoot at noon on a bright day, because the glare is the strongest at that time. Good luck!

49

[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
There’s an XT, an XTi, and an XSi, but I’m not familiar with an XTs.

…

The Canon XT series has a 1.6x effective focal length modifier, so the kit 18-55 is 29mm equivalent. For what you’re looking for, I’d stick with the kit lens plus a fast prime such as the EF 35mm f/2 at around $240. You won’t find a $400 zoom lens any faster than f/3.5 or so, and you won’t find a zoom faster than f/2.8 at all. And yet you need to get down to f/2 or f/1.4 to have any hope of decent indoor shots with no flash.
[/QUOTE]

Oops, yeah… that’s the “XSi” that I meant!

Okay, so I’ll stick with the kit lens (for outdoor shots, or indoor flash shots [the majority]), and then adding the EF 35mm f/2 still stays within my allotted budget. With the multiplier, the 35 mm is 56 mm equivilent, which is a slight magnification from the old rule of thumb that 50 mm is the perspective of the human eye. So that sounds absolutely perfect for indoor shots without a flash?

Then again, Unintentionally Blank recommended a non-kit zoom? Any particular one? My Lumix is 28 mm to 102 mm (equivilent), and sometimes (only sometimes) I’d like a little further reach than the 102 mm. So, say, the prime mentioned above, plus an 18 mm to 200 mm (28.8 mm to 320 mm equivilent) as a walkaround lens? Am right in thinking that that’s just over three times the zoom that I currently get with my point-and-shoot Lumix?

50

[QUOTE=Balthisar]
Oops, yeah… that’s the “XSi” that I meant!

Okay, so I’ll stick with the kit lens (for outdoor shots, or indoor flash shots [the majority]), and then adding the EF 35mm f/2 still stays within my allotted budget. With the multiplier, the 35 mm is 56 mm equivilent, which is a slight magnification from the old rule of thumb that 50 mm is the perspective of the human eye. So that sounds absolutely perfect for indoor shots without a flash?

Then again, Unintentionally Blank recommended a non-kit zoom? Any particular one? My Lumix is 28 mm to 102 mm (equivilent), and sometimes (only sometimes) I’d like a little further reach than the 102 mm. So, say, the prime mentioned above, plus an 18 mm to 200 mm (28.8 mm to 320 mm equivilent) as a walkaround lens? Am right in thinking that that’s just over three times the zoom that I currently get with my point-and-shoot Lumix?
[/QUOTE]

I would recommend doing a little research on the 35mm, actually. I shoot Nikon and am not at all familiar with the Canon lineup - I just scanned through B&H a bit and found something that looked like it might fit the bill, but for all I know that lens might be infamous for quality issues or something.

As for a 18-200ish lens, I believe Canon doesn’t make one, so you’d have to go to a third party lensmaker. Sigma makes an 18-200 with or without IS (actually OS is their designation), and Tamron makes an 18-250. I have no idea if they’re any good since I’m not in the market for a superzoom and if I were I’d stick with the Nikon 18-200VR. In any case you’re looking at 500-600 bucks for one of these.

If it were me I’ll look more to something like the EF-S 55-250 IS or EF 70-300 IS to add at the telephoto end and rely on the kit lens for the wide angles. But superzooms definitely have a convenience advantage. You certainly won’t get a shot if you’re in the middle of swapping lenses when the opportunity passes.

51

I’m not even really looking for “super zoom.” The 102 mm equivilent on my P&S is adequate the majority of the time. I do sometimes bite the bullet and engage the digital zoom, but rarely. So let’s say for the zoom, I’d be happy with something in the range of 65 mm, giving me roughly what I have now. A quick search shows me a 17 mm to 85 mm f/4 to f/5.6 IS that looks reasonably priced. For an outdoor camera, would the small aperture be a disappointment? That 85 mm should give me 136 mm equivilent if I’m thinking this right. I’d supplement that with a quicker prime as described above. Reasonable approach? Or would I find that I miss the 200 mm? I don’t know that I have a use for it yet, but never having had such zoom, maybe I’m missing out on lots of opportunities. Or, that could be a down the road purchase.

52

My suggestion would be to just get the standard kit zoom (the XSi’s is reputedly of very good optical quality) and the fast fixed focal length lens for indoors. Besides the Canon 35mm f/2 you could look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - it’s about $400 but a full stop faster and features HSM, Sigma’s version of Canon’s USM. There are numerous other Canon wide primes available too, though my brief scan suggested that getting faster than f/2 got expensive pretty quick. The sales person at the camera shop may have some suggestions.

Then just use the thing for a while. After a while you’ll have a better understanding of what would be useful for you. You might find that you like using the kit zoom but wish it had just a little more reach, in which case something like the 17-85 would be useful. You might find that you’d like quite a lot more reach sometimes, but not generally the same times as you like to shoot wide, in which case something like the 55-250 would be useful. You might find that what you’d really like is even wider angles, in which case you could look at Canon’s 10-22, or various third party lenses with similar range. Once you’ve used the thing for a while, you’ll have a much better idea about how the basic kit limits you - which isn’t likely to be the same way it limits me. For the cost of the kit zoom you can’t really go wrong with it, and even if you replace it with something covering the same range it will still be handy as a cheap, light lens for certain uses.

53

I dunno bout Canon lenses, but Nikons can still use old n moldy film lenses too. Sure, you’re now in full-without-a-net manual mode, but that’s pretty fun too. I use an older flash that has no TTL or metering stuff and it still makes for pretty good results.

(Course, there may also be a contingent that thinks the old lenses had superior optics, keeping the used price higher than expected, I actually haven’t researched it, YMMV.)

54

[QUOTE=Unintentionally Blank]
I dunno bout Canon lenses, but Nikons can still use old n moldy film lenses too. Sure, you’re now in full-without-a-net manual mode, but that’s pretty fun too. I use an older flash that has no TTL or metering stuff and it still makes for pretty good results.

(Course, there may also be a contingent that thinks the old lenses had superior optics, keeping the used price higher than expected, I actually haven’t researched it, YMMV.)
[/QUOTE]

I think the EOS (modern Canon SLRs from early-mid 90s on) cameras can use the old Canon lenses, but you’d need an adapter ring of some type. Does the Nikon natively support the old Nikon lenses?

55

[QUOTE=Raguleader]
I think the EOS (modern Canon SLRs from early-mid 90s on) cameras can use the old Canon lenses, but you’d need an adapter ring of some type. Does the Nikon natively support the old Nikon lenses?
[/QUOTE]

Modern Nikon cameras can mount lenses as old as 1959, but they wont auto-focus or couple to the meter. They can be used manually, though.

56

[QUOTE=Raguleader]
I think the EOS (modern Canon SLRs from early-mid 90s on) cameras can use the old Canon lenses, but you’d need an adapter ring of some type. Does the Nikon natively support the old Nikon lenses?
[/QUOTE]

Just to clarify a few things here:

Canon’s older lens mount was the FD - manual focus but automatic aperture control. Communication between the lens and the camera was mechanical only. Canon FD lens mount - Wikipedia

In 1987, Canon made a clean break with FD when they introduced their all-electrical communication, auto-focus EF lens mount.

Any Canon film or digital SLR made after 1987 can use the entire range of EF lenses. None of these cameras can use the older FD lenses without an adapter, and the general consensus that I’ve seen on photography forums seems to suggest that it’s not worth the hassle. Cheap adapters don’t deliver the required quality, while Canon’s professional adapters are very difficult to find, not to mention expensive.

When the EOS 300D was introduced, Canon also brought out a new lens mount: the EF-S. EF-S cameras can use EF lenses, but not the other way round. EF-S is Canon’s consumer-grade digital-only mount, if you like. These cameras (the EOS 300D, 350D, 400D, 450D, 20D, 30D and 40D) can all use the entire range of EF lenses.

If you look at your lens, it will clearly be marked EF, EF-S or FD, depending on its age, and you can then see if it’s compatible with your camera or not.

57

[QUOTE=beowulff]
Modern Nikon cameras can mount lenses as old as 1959, but they wont auto-focus or couple to the meter. They can be used manually, though.
[/QUOTE]

The higher end Nikons, D200, D300 etc. will meter with most older manual focus lenses once you tell the camera the focal length and f/stop of the old lens you’re using. This applies to Nikkor lenses made since 1977 and older ones that have been “AI converted” (a relatively simple procedure). :slight_smile:

58

Hey, any reason why a camera can’t just blindly tell me if the exposure is “too bright” or “too dim” based on the light going through the lens if it has a manual step-down mode, like the old Universal Screwmount lenses? It seems like that’s all the information my Canon cameras give me anyhow.

59

Not sure about that but with digital it’s not that much of a problem if the meter doesn’t work. You can just ‘chimp’ the correct exposure by taking a shot and checking the results on the little screen. Might take a few goes but you’ll get there.

60

[QUOTE=chicken wire?]
Not sure about that but with digital it’s not that much of a problem if the meter doesn’t work. You can just ‘chimp’ the correct exposure by taking a shot and checking the results on the little screen. Might take a few goes but you’ll get there.
[/QUOTE]

True, also, they make exposure charts that tell you good settings to use for various lighting conditions (Bright sunny outside, normal lit indoors, dim lit indoors, etc.), with at least one version that I can track down being designed to be printed on cardstock and made into a slide rule.