Recommend a DSLR camera?

[cotis]

Looking to get one and have read various sites and just looking to see what you all recommend.

Jarmo, what do you have again?

[w.axl.rose]

jarmo has a  Canon EOS 450D... what kind of pictures do you want to take?

[Lucky]

how pro do you want to be/look.

the best is canon d5 mk2 1600$ 
the new canon d7 is the best prosumer. 1500$


if you are going to buy a not so profi cam, then you should definitely check out discounts or bulk sales since you can save up on lenses that way.

it all depends on how much you are willing to spend, and how much camera knowledge you already have.


I've just last week got my olympus om 4t -20 year old SLR - no digital

[cotis]

I'm willing to spend up to (around) $1000. I've been looking at the Canon T2i's, a friend has a T1i and I've messed around with it and such and I enjoy using it.

Though, the lenses are what matter the most -- or so I've been told?

[Lucky]

yes lenses are important. there are often discounts on sets... camera+2 lenses for about 1000$, so you need to go around the web, see what's offered... and find your best buy.


.

[kaasupoltin]

Canon or Nikon, that's my advice when it comes to the brand; huge range of different kinds of objectives and accessories with a decent price range. Which is better, I can't tell you, 'cause it depends on the user and how he/she finds the interface and stuff. I prefer Nikon and I have D80 with a couple of lenses. And remember, it's not just about the camera body and how good it is if you want to take good quality photos, you got to have a good objective too. And you also need to have some skills in photography, that's the most important thing

My advice is that don't use all your money on the body thinking that's all you need. Buy a quality objective and a "good" body with all the functions you need.

[w.axl.rose]

also canon lenses are cheaper then nikon so keep that in mind....  i just bought me a 24-70mm nikon lens 

[Lucky]

it's also good to have a friend in photography... that way you can borrow lenses

[pilferk]

My wife WAS a pro, before we had kids.

Now she's a very good amateur.

She's stuck with Nikon through the film/digital transition and is very happy with the Nikon Digital lenses. 

[w.axl.rose]

thats because nikon lenses are the best 

[Lucky]

nah. I stuck with analog. fullframe digital is to expensive compared to analog for an amateur like me.
just got my 35-105 3.5 lens yesterday

[w.axl.rose]

i wish i could afford a full frame camera...

[Lucky]

go with analogue.
it's much more relaxing compared to digital.
the whole ritual of developing, then watching it on projectors is awesome.

you take a photo, and wait till it's developed... the greater the anticipation the greater the ecstasy

[pilferk]

go with analogue.
it's much more relaxing compared to digital.
the whole ritual of developing, then watching it on projectors is awesome.

you take a photo, and wait till it's developed... the greater the anticipation the greater the ecstasy

LOL.

Film is dead.  I think everyone can pretty much agree on that.

It's dead, more or less, professionally (unless you're talking about "art").  Most pro's are using the high end NIKON Digitals, because they can do everything a film camera can for less cost (total cost per print) AND they can add film grain if they want in post processing (if that's their "thing") along with dozens of other easy manipulations WITHOUT changing film (ISO, color to black and white, etc)...or even, in many cases, settings on their camera.  They're also lighter, and require less "carting" around of film, etc.  You also never lose a shot because your roll of film ran out...and for a pro, that's a pretty big advantage.  My wife's current memory card holds something to the tune of 2000+ photos at the highest resolution her camera can shoot....on something roughly 5% of the size of ONE roll of film, that stays inside the camera 99.9% of the time.

It's dead, almost completely, amongst amateurs.  You can't find a decent film point and shoot, or many decent film SLR's, on the primary market anymore (though you can find plenty of them used).  And, oddly, the film cameras are actually becoming MORE expensive than the digital.  Add to that the fact the amateur no longer has to pay for processing and prints of EVERY picture on a roll of film and, ultimately.....they're saving money over the long run.  Digital point and shoots are also smaller and lighter, which, obviously, is a HUGE advantage.  No inner motors to wind film, etc.....

The only negative is the LCD screens are a bit more fragile than you'd like them to be...but I expect that tech to get more durable (as it already has) over time.

As I said before, Digital is cheaper, ultimately. You no longer pay for processing and printing for pictures that may, or may not, be worthwhile.  You no longer buy film.  I can buy an 8Gig memory card for $25 (which is reuseable and will hold about 1400 photos at 10-12 MP with MINIMAL compression)....About the cost for 3 four packs of 24 exposure Kodak film or 288 exposures.   And for us, the reclaimed refrigerator space (picture a couple hundred rolls of my wife's fugi film stored in our produce drawer), and space to store negatives, is INVALUABLE.

Digital is more convenient. You no longer have to carry around 30+ rolls of film with you, you don't have to poor over dozens...and sometimes HUNDREDS, of prints to find the one good one...you do that all on your camera.  You don't even need to MAKE prints of things you want to keep, but don't need physical copies of, anymore....just burn them to a DVD/CD.  And before you poo poo the longevity of that media...I can promise you they are both less fragile, and less prone to degradation, than any film is, when stored in similar conditions.

If you're fighting against digital, you're taking on the "8-track vs CD" fight.  In this case, the tech is better, more cost effective, and easily as "artistically pleasing" as the other medium is.  I know people that have stuck to film because they feel it adds "warmth" to their pictures, and they like the idiosynchracies of film.  Honestly, I think they're nuts....or maybe "eccentric" would be a better term.  

[Skeba]

I also have the Canon 450D, which is just fine for my needs at the time. Have the kit 18-55mm lense and bought a 50mm/1.8 a while back for indoor shooting. I you're getting your first dslr, I'd recommend from Canon 450D, 500D or 550D. Even 400D will do if you can find one really cheap and used. I don't have a lot of experince on Nikon's cameras so I won't be able to comment on those. But I would suggest you buy either Canon or Nikon, since they have the most lense options and since they're most popular, you'll probably find the cheapest lenses for them also. A big plus for me was also that my friend has a Canon, and he's a pro, so his lenses fit my camera if I wish to borrow them..

And pilferk, to say that most pros use Nikon, I believe, is an overstatement. I've seen a lot of pros using both Canons and Nikons. In the high end category. They both will be more than adequate, it's just a matter of preference.

Also going analog can be fun and a cool experiment. It really makes every shot count. But if you want to develop yourself to be a better photographer, the fastest way is to get a dslr.

[Lucky]

LOL.

Film is dead.  I think everyone can pretty much agree on that.

It's dead, more or less, professionally (unless you're talking about "art").  Most pro's are using the high end NIKON Digitals, because they can do everything a film camera can for less cost (total cost per print) AND they can add film grain if they want in post processing (if that's their "thing") along with dozens of other easy manipulations WITHOUT changing film (ISO, color to black and white, etc)...or even, in many cases, settings on their camera.  They're also lighter, and require less "carting" around of film, etc.  You also never lose a shot because your roll of film ran out...and for a pro, that's a pretty big advantage.  My wife's current memory card holds something to the tune of 2000+ photos at the highest resolution her camera can shoot....on something roughly 5% of the size of ONE roll of film, that stays inside the camera 99.9% of the time.

It's dead, almost completely, amongst amateurs.  You can't find a decent film point and shoot, or many decent film SLR's, on the primary market anymore (though you can find plenty of them used).  And, oddly, the film cameras are actually becoming MORE expensive than the digital.  Add to that the fact the amateur no longer has to pay for processing and prints of EVERY picture on a roll of film and, ultimately.....they're saving money over the long run.  Digital point and shoots are also smaller and lighter, which, obviously, is a HUGE advantage.  No inner motors to wind film, etc.....

The only negative is the LCD screens are a bit more fragile than you'd like them to be...but I expect that tech to get more durable (as it already has) over time.

As I said before, Digital is cheaper, ultimately. You no longer pay for processing and printing for pictures that may, or may not, be worthwhile.  You no longer buy film.  I can buy an 8Gig memory card for $25 (which is reuseable and will hold about 1400 photos at 10-12 MP with MINIMAL compression)....About the cost for 3 four packs of 24 exposure Kodak film or 288 exposures.   And for us, the reclaimed refrigerator space (picture a couple hundred rolls of my wife's fugi film stored in our produce drawer), and space to store negatives, is INVALUABLE.

Digital is more convenient. You no longer have to carry around 30+ rolls of film with you, you don't have to poor over dozens...and sometimes HUNDREDS, of prints to find the one good one...you do that all on your camera.  You don't even need to MAKE prints of things you want to keep, but don't need physical copies of, anymore....just burn them to a DVD/CD.  And before you poo poo the longevity of that media...I can promise you they are both less fragile, and less prone to degradation, than any film is, when stored in similar conditions.

If you're fighting against digital, you're taking on the "8-track vs CD" fight.  In this case, the tech is better, more cost effective, and easily as "artistically pleasing" as the other medium is.  I know people that have stuck to film because they feel it adds "warmth" to their pictures, and they like the idiosynchracies of film.  Honestly, I think they're nuts....or maybe "eccentric" would be a better term.  

I'm into the art thing. Most average users I know dont bother looking before they shoot, and I think analogue is a great tool to learning photography. You start noticing details right on the spot.
not 2 days later when you see them on your screen. 
- when you have 36 shots... you make sure and learn to make every one of them counts, and not when you have 800 photos, and 850 are crap

Digital is great... but people take it to much for granted and many miss out on the knowledge & joy the photography can bring you due to mindless shooting.

as for the Cannon VS Nikkon, I'd go with the Cannon.

[w.axl.rose]

here are some pictures taken from my nikon... right now im testing out a few sites just to have a portfolio so i just uploaded a set of Steel panther photos while i go through my other images and decide what i want to have on my slide show.

http://tonytrujillo.zenfolio.com/

[pilferk]

And pilferk, to say that most pros use Nikon, I believe, is an overstatement. I've seen a lot of pros using both Canons and Nikons. In the high end category. They both will be more than adequate, it's just a matter of preference.

Some pros use Canons, yes.

Most pros use Nikons.  They outsell Canon pro models something like 2+ to 1.  Part of it is that Nikor lenses, especially the high end ones, are considered some of the best optics in the world. 

There have been a few surveys done on this in some of the pro journals (which my wife still gets).  The Nikon pro models (combined) usually get somewhere between 70% and 75% of the responses.  I'm pretty confident, backed by the info that exists, in making the statement I did.  Canon has caught up, over the past 5 to 10 years (and then backslid, slightly, over the past 12 months)....but Nikon is still the leader by a fair bit.

[pilferk]

I'm into the art thing. Most average users I know dont bother looking before they shoot, and I think analogue is a great tool to learning photography. You start noticing details right on the spot.
not 2 days later when you see them on your screen. 

If you're not looking through your viewfinder......you're not taking photos.  You're taking snapshots.  Granted, if you're taking pics of an event "as it happens", you might point and shoot....but you'd do that with film, too.

But I'd argue that, in fact, the feedback is MUCH more immediate with digital...because after you take a shot you can immediately review it to make sure it has the lighting, shadows, focal point, and content you want it to.  With digital, you can ensure you don't leave your subject until you've got the shot you want.  And in action shots (ie: photojournalism type stuff), you're not restrained by your film type and exposure count. 

While with film you have to take 36 to 40 shots (and maybe more, at which point you have to reload your film) and hope you got the one you want when you get home and process. 

- when you have 36 shots... you make sure and learn to make every one of them counts, and not when you have 800 photos, and 850 are crap

Ask most pros.  They'll get one good shot in every 30 to 50.  That was true when they were using film...and it's true now. I remember reading a story on Ansel Adams that said he would take pictures of the same subject over DAYS, sometimes hundreds of them, at Yosemite, to get the "perfect" shot.  And I don't think you can argue that the man wasn't an accomplished photog, and he was working with the limitation of film exposures.

The biggest difference is....now you're not paying for processing (or time/chemicals if you did their own) and you can whittle down the shot selection in seconds, not hours.  And then, from the reduced selection, pic your "perfect shot" when you're back at a bigger screen.  AND there's no dealing with negatives, and matching VERY close prints to a negative, when you're doing your own processing.

I don't think limitation forces you to learn.  Good quality forces you to learn.  If you have to take 800 pictures...you're wasting time.  No pro wants to do that, because time is money.  And no artist wants to spend that amount of time, either....whether because their internal artistic sense isn't satisfied with it or because they simply don't have that amount of time to dedicate to their art.  If you find yourself having to wade through mountains (and not just stacks) of photos to get a couple good ones, you're going to modify your technique to get a more acceptable number of pics to wade through.  The "mistakes" don't cost you as much, financially, with digital...but they cost you TIME. 

Digital is great... but people take it to much for granted and many miss out on the knowledge & joy the photography can bring you due to mindless shooting.

Point and shooters have existed since time immemorial.  I must admit, many times, I'm one of them.  Film vs digital hasn't changed that...though it may have changed that type of camera users VOLUME of pictures, because it's cheaper to do so.  I don't think that's a bad thing, necessarily.  And I don't think it precludes them (laziness or disinterest does that) from learning about photography. 

And again, film is dead.  It's becoming hard to find places to process film, anymore.  Most of the Walmarts, CVS, etc have dried up for the consumer, as they've converted to digital print centers and the pro labs are doing less and less business (Kodak's pro lab in Rochester is actually considering drastic reductions and are currently working on a sunset plan according to a couple published reports).

I know some people are hanging on to the bitter end....My mom owned an 8 track player LONG after the CD format became popular.  But that doesn't make it any less dead.

as for the Cannon VS Nikkon, I'd go with the Cannon.

Some people do prefer them, especially in the point and shoot/amateur level SLR's.  They have some advantages in those markets....especially in the user interface department (Nikon has rightly been criticized for being overly complex...something their next gen models are supposed to correct).

But the overwhelming pro selection is pretty obvious:
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/11/19/nikons-pro-dslrs-outsell-canons-big-time.aspx

FYI, that's confirmed world wide data circa November '09 (and showing trending from 2007).  Though the original poster wasn't sure of it's genesis, it's been confirmed as worldwide in other places.  My only issue with the chart is that Nikon chose not to include the D2 in the '07 - '08 Range, when it was still selling...though that might make for a more confusing/messy chart.

Popular doesn't mean best, of course.  And personal preference is certainly going to play a role.  In addition, "Canon vs Nikon" is like "Coke vs Pepsi"...the preference runs pretty strong, and their respective fans are pretty passionate about their choice.

[Lucky]

wow. those stats are completely opposite of what I thought.
I guess canon has a pretty aggressive campaign since everywhere I look there seems to be a canon.

as for analog vs digital... I guess I just like to tinker around with old stuff, and recomend everyone try it. especially since you can get a good analogue camera and a decent lens for as much as 200$.