Slashdot Mirror
Seeking a Decent Digital SLR Camera for Beginners?
lancomandr asks: "I'm interested in getting into digital photography. I have looked at many tutorials and buying guides but there are so many digital SLRs I have no idea which ones to even start considering. I want to be able to make decently large prints, I'd like to get a decent amount of use out of it before upgrading, I want good battery life and durability is key. All of you photographers out there, any suggestions? What did you buy when you started?"
More importantly what you need to do is read a good book on photography. I found this online tutorial particularly interesting when I first started out. I spent a year making poor shots when it dawned on me what I was doing wrong. Depth of field is sooooo important.
"You can get the attachments for lenses and such, but digital SLR cameras dont need that stuff... anyone who says more lenses make a digital camera better is stupid."
Ummm wrong. It depends on what you want to do with the camera. If you want to just take snaps of your kids birthday party then you can get away with just a standard digital. Tell you what to out and try to take a picture of Saturn with your simple digital and tell me that it is as good as a telescope with a camera adapter? How about taking a picture of a bird sitting on a branch 100 yards away? Want to take a picture of an ant on a flower? There is a reason that proffesionals use SLRs or sometimes even medium format camera.
The optics that the light passes through make a BIG difference in the quality of the picture.
As to a digital camera being just as you put it "a light capturing computer". Cannon has been making light capturing computers for years and do a very good job. I am sure the HP 945 is a good point a shoot camera but it is not in as flexiable as an SLR.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Since this guy seems interested in photography, I 'd like to point out that NO, you DON'T get a 10D for the price of a Rebel. They have different casing and hardware (the 10D shoots more pics per sec and it's not plastic). And if he is really a beginner, he is more worrid about learning aperture/shutter/focus, rather then the most obscure function in that secondary submenu.
You may not need an SLR. You can get fully-manual digital cameras for less than half the price that take great pictures. I've been very happy with my Canon G3 (4MP). I haven't touched my analog SLR since. I will get a DSLR eventually, but as an amature, it just doesn't make sense at the moment.
The digital market is still relatively new, and big camera companies have DSLR prices pretty high in order to recoup R&D costs. Film cameras have been around for the better part of the 20th century and are tried and true.
Also, when you upgrade to a digital SLR in a few years, you can keep the film one around just in case. One more thing to keep in mind: some old school cameras (Nikon FM3A, older models) can be used without a battery, so battery life is not an issue. Good luck!
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
I agree. If cost is a concern then invest a little money in b/w bulk loading equipment. B/W processing is simple and inexpensive, for the most part you can all the film darkroom work in a changing bag. Invest in a film scanner, they start at around $250 US and a decent printer. Learn the basics, and do it the old fasioned way. It may seem like a longer road but you will be happier with the results in the end.
Meddle thou not in the affairs of Dragons, for thou art crunchy and with most anything.
There's a big difference between "I'm into cameras" and a serious photography enthusiast. Whereas a digicam may be great fun, it's not a serious tool, and the poster sounds like she or he is looking for a serious tool - a basic one, but a serious tool nonetheless.
Just as any serious photographer would not consider getting a point-and-click film camera, serious photographers aren't interested in toy digital cameras either. I think it's safe to say this person needs an SLR.
* that's not to say there's anything wrong with toy cameras - they cause less trouble at airports and are just fine for sightseeing pictures. I intend to get one of the canon toy digitals myself soon. So don't be offended by my characterization of them as toys - we all like toys!
I did not design this game/I did not name the stakes/I just happen to like apples/And I am not afraid of snakes-AniD
I have a DR and love it.
The kit lens adds $100 to the retail price of the camera (body alone lists for $900) and you can't come anywhere near as wide a lens as the 18mm-55mm (times 1.6 crop factor = 28-88 effective field of view) for anywhere near that price for either system. It's not available outside of the kit except from scalpers on EBay.
The thing I love most about the DR is that it takes a picture immediately when I press the shutter button. Every other digicam I've used has had a second or longer delay after pressing the button. This makes a huge difference. (I assume that the other DSLRs we're discussing also perform this way and that the alternate non SLRs do not).
With the hacked firmware, the DR is very close featurewise to the Canon 10D. But, most of the added features are pretty esoteric. I wouldn't flash your camera until you need one of the additions (I haven't flashed mine).
One other exercise to try: Compare prices of the various full kits you're considering. Include whatever (if any) extra batteries, extra lenses, a flash, etc that you want. Canon lenses are supposed to be somewhat less expensive than the Nikon versions.
Finally, find and play with each of the camera's you're considering. Find out which one feels best in your hands, which one has the buttons in a logical place, etc.
I shoot mostly copy work (paintings), using EPY film (the Kodak tungsten whatever it's called). Medium format and 35mm.
I have mostly switched to the Canon dSLRs because pictures the Canon dRebel/10D (6MP) are generally much better than 35mm. Color is similar, sharpness is a bit worst, but the lack of GRAIN blows me away. You can see it the slide with a loupe, ugly GRAIN all over the place. 6MP was the magic number for me.
People who say film is better than 5-8MP complete confound me. When I open a magazine I can immediately spot the 35mm film grain in the skies.
For my purposes, a good 6MP with a good lense is equivalent to most 35mm film (to replace Fuji Velvia maybe you should go to 8MP). Anything above that is just so you can make small crops.
Let go dude.. 35mm has sucked for a long time. Even the canister with the dangly film is annoying.
However I do agree that *learning* on an all-manual SLR is a good experience, but that's up to him.
I think it depends on the kind of photography you do. If you're shooting images such as landscapes with huge amounts of detail, then go ahead and buy a film camera and pay through the nose for film, developing and printing.
But if you're like me and enjoy the sheer act of taking a lot of pictures, that kind of approach would bankrupt you. I love my Canon EOS D30 3.5mp digital SLR because I can take as many pictures as I want without worrying about the cost. In my first year of ownership, I took over 7,500 shots - which would have probably cost more than my digital SLR to make and print - and I paid $3,300 for it.
I didn't print many of my images until I bought a HP Color LaserJet 3500, which made it inexpensive to do so. Now I've made maybe 100 prints, all of which look beautiful, even 8x10s from my 3.5mp camera. You're going to say that you'd get better detail and finer resolution and glossier prints with an photo inkjet, and you're right -- but how many photos will you print out at $2 per page?
In other words, there's a quantity versus quality question. The more pictures you can take, the more you'll learn and the better you'll get. If you're restricted by budgetary limitations, you'll wish you got your digital SLR.
D
The Rebel feels like a toy. It is very cheap plastic, and the lens wobbles.
I recently purchased a Rebel two weeks ago. I've taken roughly 1,000 pictures over the last two weeks ranging from closeup portraits, to wide-lens nature shots, to action shots of my niece's soccer game. As someone who is COMPLETELY impressed and satisfied with this wonderful camera, I must peg the parent's post as a troll.
Yes, the Rebel has a plastic body instead of the metal body on the 10D. But it is a SOLID body. It looks plastic if you're staring at the camera from a distance. But when you are holding it and taking pictures, you can tell it isn't some cheap toy. At first I was questioning the decision to get the "plastic" model of the 10D but over the last 2 weeks, I've grown to actually prefer how lite it is compared to metal SLRs I've used in the past.
As for the lens wobbling - No. This is wrong. If the parent had used a Rebel where the lens wobbled, either the camera or the lens was damaged or the lens wasn't properly attached to the body. The lenses are just as solid as all other Canon lenses in the EF/EF-S line, and the lense mount is as well.
I used a friends D70 before making my decision to go with the Canon. The D70 is, in fact, a VERY nice camera. But I'm afraid I am completely satisfied with my Rebel and have zero regrets, as I think it's just a tiny bit better.
"This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com