# Looking for a Good DSLR. Any Recommendations?



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I have an old Nikon with all the lenses and filters and such so I am guessing I will want to get a Nikon, but I am not even sure they will still fit.  It's been so long since I've really been into photography that I just don't know a whole lot about the whole scene anymore.  I got a Sony DXC-F707 a few years back but it's just not the same as having the removable lenses and such.  So does anyone know what I need to look at for lens compatability?  Know a good Nikon DSLR? Or am I better off going with another company?  I don't really want to get a beginner's or introductory type DSLR as I would like to be able to expand into a wide range of settings as I get back into my photo taking stride, but I also don't want to spend a ton of money.  It's just one of those cases of way too many choices.


----------



## suicidepact (May 17, 2009)

I'm just a n00b, but I have a Nikon D50 with a couple of lenses. Its seems to be a great entry level/beginner DSLR. If you're interested in something like that, I think the current comparable model would be a D70, but I'm not too certain. I'm sure there will be plenty of others here who can further narrow down what you might want. Good luck!


----------



## vsch (Mar 5, 2009)

http://www.steves-digicams.com/ is a great site with camera reviews and forums to ask questions. all in all a very informative site.

Personally, i'm a Canon girl, love my DSLR. I have a Canon D20 and it is several years old and is just perfect. I have a small collection of lenses but the new thing is lens rental. Going on vacation and want to have the perfect lens for the occasion? rent it. Want to take ice hockey pictures like a professional sports photographer? rent the right lens. Photography has come along way!!!!


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

http://www.dpreview.com/ is another good review site.


----------



## Sienna_98 (Jan 26, 2009)

Your current lenses will work on a Nikon DSLR.  IMO that's one of Nikon's main selling points: that their lenses are interchangeable.


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

When it comes to a DSLR, I would recommend the Nikon if you really want to get into photography. Point-n-Shoot is a different story.

As already mentioned, your old lenses will work fine. I have a couple Nikon bodies and love them. The D50 is a few years old now, it was great when it came out but there are newer and better now. Nikon keeps the design of their bodies fairly similair so you can move from one camera to another without having to relearn everything. Along with some of the review sites that have already been mentioned, like http://www.dpreview.com, you might want to take a look at the Nikon site to compare the different features. Remember, even their "intro" models allow you to shoot in manual, shutter, or aperture priority.

I would recommend one that supports the Creative Lighting System. It is so easy to use CLS for off-camera lighting!


----------



## Reyn (Feb 10, 2009)

I am by no means a camera expert. I am just someone that likes to take pictures.

I have the D40. I have to buy lenses that are made for the D40 so they will autofocus. I think they are AF-S.

Since you have the older lenses I would assume you would NOT want to go with the D40 or D40X. Typically the older lenses do not have the motor in the lens itself. The D40 line doesn't have a motor in the camera body so your older lenses wouldn't autofocus. Make sure whatever you get will have the motor to autofocus in the camera body so you can use the older lenses. I think if $ were no object I would go with the D90.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

FYI, these are the top-selling digital SLR's on Amazon right now. Note that at least one of these is body-only - no lens.

Canon Digital Rebel XSi 12.2 MP Digital SLR Camera with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens (Black)

Canon EOS Rebel T1i 15.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3-Inch LCD and EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens

Canon EOS 5D Mark II 21.1MP Full Frame CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)

Nikon D90 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom Lens

Nikon D40 6.1MP Digital SLR Camera Kit with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens


----------



## suicidepact (May 17, 2009)

Thanks for adding the links, Harvey. It was nearly bed time and my last post when I wrote posted. I hope everyone clicks and buys!


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I have the Nikon D300.... It is an amazing camera.... Got it last year for my 40th birthday. 



There are so many options on it, I highly recommend taking a class to get familiar with it..... I took both the beginner and advanced class and the flash class presented by Nikonians, they were well worth it.

http://www.nikoniansacademy.com/all/workshopsByCityArea.html


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

Since Amazon is an affiliate of KindleBoards, of course I would recommend that you follow Harvey's (or Pidgeon's) links and purchase from Amazon.

But if you can't find what you are looking for at Amazon or if you just want to browse around, two other very good and reliable sites to purchase gear from are:
adorama
BHPhoto

Pidgeon92 - Nice camera, I have that one too


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

OK--before we get into the Nikon/Canon debate , there's a few things you need to know. I'm not going to cover this stuff in detail, just give you enough to start your research. I haven't bought camera equipment in two years, so some features have changed & you'll want to make sure you know what the new models cover.


Your old lenses may work, but there's a lot they won't do or won't do well. Don't expect that you'll continue using them forever. The new stuff is amazing and it's specifically built for the latest & greatest features in DSLRs. New lenses have quieter, faster motors, and the lenses are often optically corrected for things like "purple fringing" that you simply never saw in film.

DSLR's are (generally) not equivalent to 35 mm; instead, they're equivalent to about 2/3 of a 35mm frame. Your wide angle lenses aren't nearly as wide as they are on a film SLR, and your telephotos provide a much closer view than you're used to. 50 mm is not a "normal" lens on a DSLR; it's on the tail end of the wide spectrum. An 85 mm provides the closest to a "normal" frame. This takes some getting used to if you spent a lot of time on film before making the switch. The Canon 5D is the exception to this rule; it's a full frame body, providing the exact frame view you're used to on a film body; I'm not sure if Nikon has come out with a full frame version yet.

If you have an old flash, it may or may not work automatically with your new camera. Again, a little digging online will tell you what you need to know. Many flashes will still work manually, you'll just need to set it for how bright, how wide, etc. on your own.


So--having said that, personal experience:

I had a set of two old Canon EOS film bodies and a nice collection of lenses that sat in a cabinet for years. Because I knew nothing about the issues I mentioned above, but I did know that the EOS mounts were the same, it seemed logical to me to just buy an EOS digital body. What I realize now is that had I done my homework ahead of time, I might still have stuck with Canon, but it was the perfect chance for me to have made the switch over to Nikon had I felt they provided a better digital experience. I thought I'd save money by using my old lenses. Instead, out of about 6 film lenses, I still have and use ONE (a specialty macro lens that I'll probably replace later on because the noise drives me up a wall). I sold off the others within the first 6 months when I realized that for one reason or another, they were not good glass to have in the digital world.

Canon vs. Nikon: I've shot both professionally. It's a matter of preference. I find Canon's color range & inherent saturation is more to my taste than Nikon, but some of the Nikon bodies (the D3 especially) made me drool. As I said, I locked myself back into Canon early on, and one of the photographers I worked with would never ever consider using anything but a Nikon. Still, when we'd put our pictures from a given wedding side by side with no processing, you'd be hard pressed to figure out which came from which camera. There were times after processing where we did a lot of, "did you shoot that or did I?" I really believe you can't go wrong with either.

Kit lenses: 90% of them are garbage. Check out the reviews on them & decide. Many people buy the body only for less money, then buy a better quality general purpose lens.

My personal gear: Canon 40D, 2 Canon 20D (still a workhorse!), bag o' ridiculously expensive glass & flashes. I can personally see the difference between the images from the 40D & the 20D, but hubby as a casual photographer can't. Mostly the difference lie in the number of megapixels & of course, whatever the newest bells & whistles are for a given product line.

Definitely buy from Amazon through the Kindleboards link if they have what you want at the right price. I've also shopped at Adorama & BH, both are good reliable companies. One recommendation I'd make if you decide to buy lenses used is KEH (www.keh.com). They're an extremely solid company, and I've saved plenty buying secondhand lenses through them rather than paying full price for a new one. I've never had a bad experience buying from them; it's worth a look. I've also picked up secondhand bodies both through online forums & through Craigslist. My first three DSLRs were all used; one I resold later on, the other two are the 20Ds I still own. Used isn't necessarily a bad way to go even for bodies when you first are starting out. Just try to find out how many "clicks" are on the camera as the shutters are rated only for a certain number of frames. On the 20Ds, it's about 50,000--which sounds like a lot until you start shooting with them. Then you realize that even as an advanced amateur, it's a piece of cake to shoot 1000 frames in a few trips to the zoo. LOL

Oh....and Square Trade will warranty most new equipment. I have Square Trade warranties on a couple of the pricier lenses, complete with accidental damage coverage. You never know when some kid is going to run headlong into your tripod & not even apologize.


----------



## Sweety18 (Feb 14, 2009)

I'd go with a Canon, I've owned many Canon cameras over the years and have never had any problems!  On the other hand, Nikons are also a great choice.  Either way, you can't go wrong with these 2 brands


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

To Comment on a couple of Victoria's statements...



VictoriaP said:


> DSLR's are (generally) not equivalent to 35 mm... I'm not sure if Nikon has come out with a full frame version yet.


That's a really good point... If you aren't aware of this, you might want to read up on it. If you get a full frame camera, you want to make sure you don't buy a "digital" lens. The "digital" (dx) lenses are made for the smaller image sensor. If you get a camera with the smaller image sensor (dx) you can use either the dx lenses or the full frame lenses. And yes, Nikon has full frame DSLRs.



VictoriaP said:


> Kit lenses: 90% of them are garbage. Check out the reviews on them & decide. Many people buy the body only for less money, then buy a better quality general purpose lens.


I don't agree that 90% are garbage; at least not in Nikon's case. Some of their kit lenses get very good reviews and it's an inexpensive way to get a new lens. But as Victoria mentions, read reviews first.



VictoriaP said:


> Just try to find out how many "clicks" are on the camera as the shutters are rated only for a certain number of frames. On the 20Ds, it's about 50,000--which sounds like a lot until you start shooting with them.


Very true. Many people think that shooting digital is free because you don't have the film expense, but you still have a very expensive camera. Just because you have the ability to delete a picture and not pay for film processing doesn't mean you just want to hold down the shutter. I still try to shoot with a little thought. If I take 5 pictures of a flower and they are all the same, then I guess I didn't really need to take the last 4.


----------



## Rasputina (May 6, 2009)

I'd buy the Nikon D60.


----------



## Jessi (Jun 19, 2009)

I have the Nikon d40X and I love it! I have two lenses so far (limited funds), have a kit lens (18-55) and I have a 70-200mm. You have to get the newer lenses made for the d40x because it doesn't auto focus with the older lenses, but if you are mainly going to be manually focusing, it doesn't matter. I can use my fiancee's d50 lenses, but I have to manually focus them. Not too much of a hassle, and the pictures still come out looking great! Definitely check out dpreview.com. Great site, that's how I landed on my d40x!!


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Whew, thanks for all the replies!  The whole trying to save money by using my old lenses but ending up shooting myself in the foot (pardon the pun) by not getting exactly what I wanted and then ending up not being able to even use them is most of the concern I've had as I take those first steps into the wading pool of the research ocean.

And wow... digging up my old 35mm I may have just answered most of my own questions anyway.  It's a Minolta X-700 so it's not a Nikon at all!  Could be I just fantasized about a Nikon at the time    It's probably been about 10 years since I used it, prefering my Sony digital because I just don't have the darkroom and all that available to me anymore and I never take film in to be developed as I prefered to do it myself or let it sit and gather dust.  I've just been finding lately that my Sony doesn't really do everything I want now that I'm getting back into it.

So I guess I can start with a clean slate.  I was mostly worried about being able to use my Zykkor telephoto lens because I adored it, but as people have been saying I can probably find better now and far cheaper than this cost me way back in the days I first got it.  I am too much of a packrat, I need to learn to let go of the past sometimes!  And yes, if Amazon has what I'm looking for I'll be sure to use a referer's link.  I try not to make any purchases there anymore without coming through the link-maker here.


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

The edge usually seems to go to Cannon in the reviews I've seen, but, really, you can't go wrong with either Cannon or Nikon.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I'm really leaning toward one of the full frame models, thanks for pointing that out Victoria I had no idea!  This has of course narrowed the list while widening the price a bit, so I'm still a bit on the fence.  I'll definitely try to keep in touch with the ones that make my final cuts so I can get more suggestions.  We obviously have more folks who know their stuff here than I had hoped for!


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> I'm really leaning toward one of the full frame models, thanks for pointing that out Victoria I had no idea! This has of course narrowed the list while widening the price a bit, so I'm still a bit on the fence. I'll definitely try to keep in touch with the ones that make my final cuts so I can get more suggestions. We obviously have more folks who know their stuff here than I had hoped for!


Glad to help! I had no clue about that when I started and it came as a bit of a shock to find my expensive (albeit now elderly) wide angle zoom had become a pretty boring normal range lens.

Now having said that--I strongly recommend handling both types of cameras in person. Borrow or rent them for a day if you can. The difference between the full frame & the 2/3 frame is significant, but really it's more just something you need to wrap your brain around. On a regular DSLR, an 18 mm lens is really on the narrow end of wide, rather than being so wide it's nearly panoramic (as it was in the days of film). Realistically though, what you see through the lens is what you get, so the actual impact on your shooting isn't dramatic. At least for Canon, the full frame body is larger, heavier, and significantly more expensive than going with a prosumer grade DSLR. As much as I liked the full frame 5D, I sold plenty of pictures shot on the supposedly lower end models. The photographer's eye & sense of design is still the most important "gear" you can have.

And again, you might consider stalking Craigslist for a bit. Used gear may be a couple of years old, but the price is typically half or less what you'd pay for a new body. It's a good way to try it out without taking too much away from your Kindle budget! LOL


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Good idea on Craig's List, and yes... I do feel a bit of a hit in the pocket looking at these full frame DSLRs.  When someone called the one I was looking at the Porsche of DSLRs... well I drive a Corolla.  I'd have to keep it under a glass dome with one of those Pink Panther alarms on it and never use it for fear of anything happening to it!  I might have champagne tastes, but my pocket book doesn't agree with them.  And yes, something that price is definitely eating into my Kindle fund!  I was debating having to not get the DX for another few months to make such a big purchase.

I have no idea where I can rent the cameras, but there are a couple good shops nearby and I can always check them out at Best Buy.  The two shops kind of turned their noses at digital the last time I was there, but it's been years and I can't imagine they're still there without moving into that field at least a bit.


----------



## libros_lego (Mar 24, 2009)

This is OT, but what's the best way to learn photography on my own? I want to learn, but I don't have time to take a class.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I learned through a college course but I can't imagine there aren't books and such on the subject. Once you get the basics down on how aperture f-stops affect the depth of field and shutter speed affects the light coming into the lens you can pretty much experiment with it from there on your own and get some really good looking shots just off that knowledge. I found that was the biggest fundamental thing for me to learn, that and weening myself off the flash, though I'm sure there's so much more out there that I've forgotten or never even learned at all (See? I totally forgot about light metering!). Then the fun comes in with all the different lenses and filters and such.

We had an ancient book called The Joy of Photography (not a very original name so can't tell you if any you find now are the same) that had some nice run downs on the technical bits. All the class -really- taught me was those fundamentals in the first week, then different ways to compose a shot and how to see things differently through the camera in the next week or so, then it was mostly developing film.

You pretty much just need the camera and the knowledge. The only way to really learn and see how it all works is to see it and do it yourself. If you needed help getting a good camera you can see that folks around here are more than knowledgeable on the subject and can probably find a great one to suit what you need.

This seems to be a really good site... http://www.danheller.com/tech-intro.html

Edit: Okay I just read through the whole page and he pretty much hits the nail on the head. If you want to know how to get started, give this site a quick read. Photography is one of those things that it's actually better if you're not taught in a class. I'm all inspired to go out and shoot now after reading that!


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I'm so set on this Canon EOS 5D Mark II, but $3500 is way out of my price range. Seems all of the full range cameras are pretty outrageous... the Nikon is $6000. I liked my wide angle lens! I think I'm going to have to settle a bit as much as I got my heart set on the full sensor models. Maybe if I got it with just the body for $2500 and saved up later for the lenses...


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

Scheherazade said:


> I'm so set on this Canon EOS 5D Mark II, but $3500 is way out of my price range. Seems all of the full range cameras are pretty outrageous... the Nikon is $6000. I liked my wide angle lens! I think I'm going to have to settle a bit as much as I got my heart set on the full sensor models. Maybe if I got it with just the body for $2500 and saved up later for the lenses...


Yes, full frame would be nice, I would like one too. But, really, the smaller image sensor on the digitals are still very good and still produce great pictures.


----------



## libros_lego (Mar 24, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> I learned through a college course but I can't imagine there aren't books and such on the subject. Once you get the basics down on how aperture f-stops affect the depth of field and shutter speed affects the light coming into the lens you can pretty much experiment with it from there on your own and get some really good looking shots just off that knowledge. I found that was the biggest fundamental thing for me to learn, that and weening myself off the flash, though I'm sure there's so much more out there that I've forgotten or never even learned at all (See? I totally forgot about light metering!). Then the fun comes in with all the different lenses and filters and such.
> 
> We had an ancient book called The Joy of Photography (not a very original name so can't tell you if any you find now are the same) that had some nice run downs on the technical bits. All the class -really- taught me was those fundamentals in the first week, then different ways to compose a shot and how to see things differently through the camera in the next week or so, then it was mostly developing film.
> 
> ...


Thank you! I really appreciate it.


----------



## Tarma (Oct 27, 2008)

I recently made the switch to digital SLR after many years with my old trusty 35mm. I initially agonized over the full frame issue, but in the end, the size, weight, and $$ made the decision for me. I went into the camera store fully intending to buy the Cannon T1i until I actually held both the cannon and the Nikon D5000 and D90. I went with the Nikon D90 and have been very happy with it.



You REALLY need to hold the cameras you are interested before buying. For me the Cannon was just too light, especially with a longer lens.

Also, be aware there is quite a learning curve after going digital. A lot of what you know transfers nicely, but figuring out how to make the camera do what you want can be interesting. A friend had warned me about this, and I am very glad I took her advise and bought a get started type book for my specific camera. I think it saved me a lot of time and frustration in the long run.


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> I'm so set on this Canon EOS 5D Mark II, but $3500 is way out of my price range. Seems all of the full range cameras are pretty outrageous... the Nikon is $6000. I liked my wide angle lens! I think I'm going to have to settle a bit as much as I got my heart set on the full sensor models. Maybe if I got it with just the body for $2500 and saved up later for the lenses...


Well, to be fair, you're looking at professional cameras in that range. I agree, $6000 is outrageous, but then again, I've shot with it & seen the results--they're amazing. LOL Still, my own bodies were in the $1500 range new. Remember, the pro cameras have a ton of things on them that most people won't use. Heck, the pros I know--mostly portrait and wedding--don't use half that stuff.

There are used 5D (non mark II) bodies available through KEH for under $2K, and I'm sure they're available other places as well. Perhaps that would be a way to afford to get a full frame body and still get a lens immediately to go with it? The original 5D is a fantastic camera, and I'd pretty much guarantee that while it's no longer new, you would absolutely love it.

And there are good wide angles available for the smaller sensor cameras, so don't let that keep you from thinking you absolutely have to go full frame. If you do decide on Canon, I'll send you a list of some of my favorites in their lineup.


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

Don't forget the old adage...  

ok, I don't remember how it goes, but it's something about the fact that a great picture isn't dependent on a great camera.  It's all about the photographer.  

When it comes to an SLR I'm loyal to Nikon (for point/shoot you can't beat Canon) and many people love the Canon SLRs.  It just tells you that no matter which camera you get, it will be a great camera as long as it's the right one for you.  And you just might not need all the little extras on the high end camera.  Unless you shoot everyday you might not even remember how to use some of them  

edit:  to prove my point, I love the picture used for my avatar.  It was taken with a 5 year old 3-meg point-n-shoot


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

kim said:


> Don't forget the old adage...
> 
> ok, I don't remember how it goes, but it's something about the fact that a great picture isn't dependent on a great camera. It's all about the photographer.


Exactly right. And getting more camera than you can handle is an exercise in frustration. Despite reading the manual and other books on my Nikon D300, I rarely used it until I took the D300 class. Too many settings that I had no idea how to work, or how they worked _together_. It is still going to take a few years for me to get really comfortable with it.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Now I guess the big question is... where does the amount of megapixels become more of just a way to say "This camera is more awesome than that camera." instead of an actual marked improvement.  I was looking at the original 5D and it's $500-$1000 cheaper there abouts than the Mark II but it's also three years older and nearly 10 megapixels lower.  From what I'm seeing there's no real advantage to the smaller sensor.  People say it makes telephoto lenses zoom in farther, but am I wrong in thinking I can get the same effect with a crop in Photoshop?  While the larger sensors have a true advantage in allowing you to get wider shots.  But then I've seen where they have lenses to compensate so that you really only have to worry about the full sensor cameras if you have older lenses meant for a 35mm camera.


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

More megapixels = larger photographs.  If you're planning on blowing them up into posters, you might need the greater size.  Seriously, from everything I've been taught, we're at a point now where more megapixels no longer makes a difference.  Once you're past about 8, it just isn't relevant to the average user who will never print anything larger than an 8x10.  

Smaller sensor, smaller camera body.  To me, that's about it for advantages.  When I was more actively shooting two years ago, the other "advantage" was that certain lenses in the Canon lineup weren't compatible with the 5D full frame, the most critical of which was the 17-55 IS.  I needed that Image Stabilization for shooting low light weddings, and even at my best 20 years ago, I was never steady enough to hand hold primes in those situations (tripods were not an option for most of the work we did).  IS simply wasn't available at that point in the moderately wide - normal zoom range for the 5D.  You cannot get a wider shot with a full frame than you can with a small sensor.  It seems so counter-intuitive, I know, but they HAVE made lenses to compensate for the smaller sensor if that's the direction you want to go.  My 20-35 wide lens on film was sold to be replaced by a 12-24 on my 40D.  They cover the same angle of view; the only thing that's changed is the numbers.

As for cropping in Photoshop--yes, you can.  However, you lose some detail (and often a good deal of sharpness) when you take a small portion of an image & enlarge it to be screen-sized or 8x10 print sized.  Sharpness can be problematic in digital in the best of times with the best of equipment; anything you can do to avoid making it worse is pretty important.

Having said that--one thing you need to think through is how you shoot & what you prefer to shoot.  Long range telephoto is great for animals at a distance and crappy for landscapes.  Wide angles are awesome for taking in the view, but you get a lot of "see that dot there, that's a red-winged blackbird", and let's face it, people often don't like the way they look in images with extreme wide angles.  The lenses you need for outdoor portraiture are different that what you want for indoor product shots (or even indoor pet shots!).  If you're doing a lot of distance shooting, the smaller sensor means you can use a less expensive 300mm lens on a small sensor to get a shot that would take nearly a 500 mm on the 5D.

Personally, from a quality I'd take an original 5D over the mark II in a heartbeat if my hands were still steady enough to hold it for everyday shooting.  I've seen what it can do; I have a poster on my wall from a friend that was shot with it, and it's simply incredible.  But I wouldn't give up my 40D for it, because the quality of what I produce with it is nearly the same, and I expect the newer 50D would be similar.  For me, it came down to having that extra $1000 to spend on better lenses.  Which is one other thing to keep in mind--your lenses are the real investment.  For the most part, if you care for them, they don't wear out like camera bodies do.  Putting money into good glass is generally better than upgrading the camera body.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Great, thanks!  That definitely makes it a little easier to downgrade my tastes a bit though the frame issue still has me torn a bit ><  I figured that around 10 megapixels or so there'd be such a little difference that it wouldn't be worth the extra money.  It almost seems like now they give the measurement as an easy way for people to see "Hey, this camera is better!" when it doesn't necessarily even mean it is.


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

That's right, megapixels just don't matter anymore. I would say, you won't really see any difference once you get over 6 meg. Unless you are doing some extensive cropping, it's more than enough to be enlarged to an 8x10. I think you can even get a poster out of 6 meg.

As for one of Victoria's comments...


VictoriaP said:


> Putting money into good glass is generally better than upgrading the camera body.


I absolutely agree. Any of the cameras you are looking at will do everything you want. It's the lens that will start to impact your pictures. Of course, in my opinion, I think Nikkor lenses are superior


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

A co-worker was asking me about DSLR recommendations, and I was glad to be able to refer him to this thread. It's a nice summary of what to look for, and think about, when choosing a DSLR. Thanks for sharing for knowledge, people.


----------



## angelad (Jun 19, 2009)

Very relevant thread, worth a sticky!


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I'm still waiting on money, but I'm pretty much decided on the Canon EOS 5D unless I can get a really good deal on the Mark II... which might be possible. I'd love to buy it through Amazon with the referrer's link, and will if I can't get this to work again, but I know Sears matches online pricing. I got my Sony that was like $1500 at the time for $800 because they matched one of those online sites you'd never trust your credit card with. The problem is finding a Sears with the right model >< I looked at the local store and they only had cameras under $500. They have it online but it doesn't fall into the price matching. I'm thinking I'll be going through Amazon anyway, plus it's nice to know you're getting the product instead of gambling with a site that has it a bit cheaper. I'm still studying up on them so I reserve the right to change my mind, but I can't wait to get it and start taking pictures again. I probably won't be able to get the DX for a bit now though


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Okay... it's finally coming around to time for me to get my DSLR when what should Amazon send me but an email about the Sony Alpha DSLRA850. Do any of you guys know anything about this? I am looking at specs and it seems really nice. I have a Sony right now but how do their high end cameras compare to Canon and Nikon? I know these are the go to companies... but with this camera Sony just put a full frame 26.5 MP camera on the market for under $2000. I'm curious what you guys think of it and am cursing them for making me decide on a camera again after I had finally made up my mind.

It looks like Canon's Mark II stands up better at higher ISOs, but I'm not sure such a thing would be noticeable unless I'm making huge posters. The two cameras seem indistinguishable at 200. Now I have to look at the Sony A900 too and try to decide between those. $2000 for the 850 body or $2700 for the 900 body and lens.

It also sounds like it is lacking in live view. Do you find yourselves using live view on the LCD much when taking shots with higher end DSLRs or is it preferable to use the viewfinder to the point that this shouldn't be an issue? I hate making decisions like these! I was so sold on the Canon, too, but this looks like it takes sharper pictures and I know megapixels start not to really matter, but that's a lot of megapixels for a lot cheaper plus image stabilization.

850


900


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

VictoriaP said:
 

> DSLR's are (generally) not equivalent to 35 mm; instead, they're equivalent to about 2/3 of a 35mm frame. Your wide angle lenses aren't nearly as wide as they are on a film SLR, and your telephotos provide a much closer view than you're used to. 50 mm is not a "normal" lens on a DSLR; it's on the tail end of the wide spectrum. An 85 mm provides the closest to a "normal" frame. This takes some getting used to if you spent a lot of time on film before making the switch. The Canon 5D is the exception to this rule; it's a full frame body, providing the exact frame view you're used to on a film body; I'm not sure if Nikon has come out with a full frame version yet.


You've got this completely backwards. a 50mm indeed is not a normal on a APS-C sized (16x24mm) sensor in a DSLR, but it's at the low end of the telephoto range. On a 1.5x crop Nikon, it's equivalent to a 75mm film lens, where on a 1.6x crop Canon, it's equivalent to an 80mm. Likewise, an 85mm does not become a "normal", it goes from a perfect portrait length (a spot now held by a 50-60mm in the DSLR world) to a medium telephoto of 120-130mm.

Several Canon AND Nikon bodies that are full frame--meaning they have a sensor that's roughly the same size as a 35mm filmstrip (24x36mm). The Canons are the 1Ds Mark I, II, and III, and the 5D Mark I and II. In Nikon-land, the full-frame models are the D3, D3x, D700, and D700x.



Scheherazade said:


> I'm so set on this Canon EOS 5D Mark II, but $3500 is way out of my price range. Seems all of the full range cameras are pretty outrageous... the Nikon is $6000.


Not so, the D700 is $2300. You were probably looking at the D3x, which is Nikon's professional DSLR, comparable to Canon's 1Ds Mark III. Both list for $8k.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

This is me second guessing myself again... on the other hand, the consensus above seemed to be that your glass was almost more important than the camera body.  Nikon and Canon have a wider range of lenses than Sony by a good deal, so this might end up being the deciding factor.  I will try to stop agonizing and leave this in your capable suggestions... I might even try to get some sleep!


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

Yeah, the Sony's are definitely nice bodies, but their collection of lenses pales in comparison to Nikon and Canon, and are generally more expensive to boot.  For that reason, I never recommend them.

Take some of the above advice and go handle the cameras at a store.  Nikon and Canon do things very differently, and most people prefer one or the other.  There are fantastic lenses available for both (with the Canon L series having the red ring and the uplevel Nikkors having the gold plaque), and they're widely supported and loved.  You can't go wrong with either, but you're the one who has to live with it, so pick the one that won't frustrate you on a daily basis.  You'll be spending a LOT of money on lenses in the coming years (that you'll have for a LONG time), and you'll be replacing this body in just a few, so this first decision is almost anticlimactic.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I can't add much to what has already been said.  You did ask about "live view."  I shoot with my 10D that I've had for years, never had a problem with it!  99 per cent of the time I don't miss "live view" and actually prefer looking through the lens many times, as for when the sun is bright.  I only miss it when I would have to contort my body into positions it can't make any more to get the shot I want.

I bought Canon because I had lenses I had inherited from my dad, and it was a good way to start.  As has been said, though, I don't use those lenses anymore.

Thanks for the recommendation for www.keh.com--I'm going to check it out!  Would you recommend selling used lenses to them or just put them on the market?

Betsy


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

Nikon has a couple great cameras coming out now.

The D3000 is considered an entry level camera - I got to hold it and play with it. It is very light and compact. It has a lot of auto modes that would be great for quick snapshots (I don't always want to take the time to think of f-stops and lighting) or for someone just learning the SLR world. I wish I would have had this camera on my Europe trip instead of my big heavy high-priced dslr. I want this camera.



The D300s - high end, bordering on a professional camera - it's like their D300 but does video and has sound input. I have the D300 (not the "s") and it's a great camera.



edited to add Amazon links


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Yeah... the price on the Sony is really nice and I can tell just by looking at it that I'd prefer the body, it looks a lot like my old Minolta, but I think the savings would be offset pretty quickly by the lenses which seems to be the real investment.  That and the fact they don't have nearly the same range available and I think I can rule out the Sony.  I really like the boxy design that hearkens back to how cameras looked before they tried to make them all streamlined... stupid proprietary lenses.


----------



## sigrosenblum (Dec 22, 2008)

I had great results from my non-digital SLR Miranda. Not expensive, but great lenses. So try these updates:

http://www.apexbattery.com/digital-camera-batteries--chargers--etc--miranda-digital-cameras.html


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

sigrosenblum said:


> I had great results from my non-digital SLR Miranda. Not expensive, but great lenses. So try these updates:
> 
> http://www.apexbattery.com/digital-camera-batteries--chargers--etc--miranda-digital-cameras.html


Umm, those are BATTERIES.


----------



## sigrosenblum (Dec 22, 2008)

geko29 said:


> Umm, those are BATTERIES.


So sorry. Was rushed. But the tip remains: If Miranda has a digital SLR, you might look into it. I am totally out of photography these days, so I can't help more than that. I apologize for the goof!


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Thanks for the suggestions .  I definitely have time to look into it since I went hog wild buying GPSs and a DX and netbooks... so the DSLR has been put on hold for a bit.  I figure with classes being pretty intense this semester I wouldn't have time to enjoy it anyway and with technology like this waiting just means the price gets lower and lower.


----------



## F1Wild (Jun 15, 2009)

Great thread!  I am still on the fence about switching from my 35mm SLR to DSLR.  I love my Canon with 300mm lens for shooting Formula 1 racing pics.  I hope if I do make the switch I can use my current lenses.


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

F1Wild said:


> Great thread! I am still on the fence about switching from my 35mm SLR to DSLR. I love my Canon with 300mm lens for shooting Formula 1 racing pics. I hope if I do make the switch I can use my current lenses.


As long as it's less than 20 years old, you're good. Canon introduced the EOS system and its EF lens mount in 1987, and everything made since then will fit on newer bodies.


----------



## F1Wild (Jun 15, 2009)

geko29 said:


> As long as it's less than 20 years old, you're good. Canon introduced the EOS system and its EF lens mount in 1987, and everything made since then will fit on newer bodies.


Excellent!!!! Dear Santa.......


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I'm resurrecting this post because Nikon just came out with the D3000 and it seems like a -very- nice camera for a really good price. It does sound like it's geared toward introducing people to DSLR photography, but I can't imagine how they could dumb down the features to the point that you couldn't use them in an advanced capacity. I've seen a handful of good reviews for it and I know other people were interested too. Sadly I haven't gotten mine yet, but maybe for my birthday in January I can treat myself. Anyone have any feedback or experience with this one? It's only $525 on Amazon.


----------

