wanting to get into photography...help

I

infamus

Gawd
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
681
What would be a good starter SLR camera. Brands and models would help. Looking to spend nearly my whole tax rebate($500-$600)

Been using PS for a little while and using basic cameras. Looking to get into photography as a hobby and need some help choosing.
 
Well, since I have one, the Canon Rebel XTi. One step down is the Rebel XT. Both good Cameras though.

I am loving mine, but it's freaking expensive to get lens. So, be prepared for more money than you thought later down the road! =)
 
If you only have $500-600, start with a RebelXT body and pick up the 18-55 IS lens (not the old kit lens, but the new one with IS). If you can swing it, I'd budget on the far side of $1000. It'll get you quite a few more options.
 
Find a used Nikon d50, and a used Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

Thank me later.

d50 shouldn't be more then 350 (in really good condition) and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 should be about the same. It's a little over your budget, but I'd highly suggest it.

Otherwise go with the XT, and your lens of choice. Though you could probably find a Canon 20d for around 400 dollars, which would give you a great deal more mileage then either of those two.
 
Check out Olympus if you are just keeping it a hobby. Even Sony, but they are a little more expensive. If you want to get into a system and take this beyond a inexpensive hobby go with Canon or Nikon.

With Nikon you have to make sure your lenses can be autofocused. A D60 and D40's do not have the AF motor in the body, so old screwdriver driven lenses will not work.

If you could get away with it, follow what fugu says and budget a little higher.
 
I'd go with a Canon, I may be a bit biased, but they seem to have the best lens options. All EF and EF-S lenses work on a Canon dSLR.

If you just want to play, look for the original Digital Rebel on ebay, they can be had for ~$300. I've seen some as low as $250. Pickup a nifty fifty (Canon 50mm F/1.8) and you're set for hours of fun for ~$400.

I'm anxiously awaiting my 70-200mm F/4 L USM, for my XTi.
 
Sean said:
Check out Olympus if you are just keeping it a hobby. Even Sony, but they are a little more expensive. If you want to get into a system and take this beyond a inexpensive hobby go with Canon or Nikon.

With Nikon you have to make sure your lenses can be autofocused. A D60 and D40's do not have the AF motor in the body, so old screwdriver driven lenses will not work.

If you could get away with it, follow what fugu says and budget a little higher.
Click to expand...

Really... just avoid Olympus and Sony... or any other brand besides Canon or Nikon. I think that it is really stupid to limit yourself, even if you plan only being a hobbiest, to these subpar brands. The cameras they make are fine, but you'll be better off with a canon or nikon in the long run.

Avoid the d60 and d40 like the plague, another pointless way to limit yourself in the event that you do become interested in photography.

The d50 may be old... but it has a spectacular sensor and will give you amazing pictures.
 
I was able to pick up a Canon 20D with 6500 clicks and an extra battery off the POTN forums for $400, add a 2gb card and a Nifty Fifty (Canon 50mm f/1.8 mkII) and it was $500 all together. Played with it last night as I got it yesterday and take some great pics. Look on POTN or Fred Miranda forums and you can find some smokin' deals there.
 
I think if you would get a better value if you could add another $50 and get a used 30D. If you don't plan on investing more than what you have then I think you should get a Canon G9 instead.
 
Bennyb said:
Really... just avoid Olympus and Sony... or any other brand besides Canon or Nikon. I think that it is really stupid to limit yourself, even if you plan only being a hobbiest, to these subpar brands. The cameras they make are fine, but you'll be better off with a canon or nikon in the long run.
Click to expand...

Sony Subpar??? On what do you base this reasoning? Pure Canon bias?? Are you familiar with the A700 and the wonderful Minolta lenses, not to mention the Carl Zeiss glass that Sony has put out this year?? Also the A700 is only $1200 cmon, give me a break subpar geeesh. The A900 full frame is coming out soon as well. So please make educated statenments about gear.


Canon makes good gear yes, but Sony does as well for a very good price with IN BODY STABILIZATION to boot. Yes if you compare a $2000 + Canon body to the A700 for $1200 you do get more features, weather seals, full frame etc. But compare apples to apples and hold off on the subpar talk.



I
 
Kaolinchemist said:
Sony Subpar??? On what do you base this reasoning? Pure Canon bias?? Are you familiar with the A700 and the wonderful Minolta lenses, not to mention the Carl Zeiss glass that Sony has put out this year?? Also the A700 is only $1200 cmon, give me a break subpar geeesh. The A900 full frame is coming out soon as well. So please make educated statenments about gear.


Canon makes good gear yes, but Sony does as well for a very good price with IN BODY STABILIZATION to boot. Yes if you compare a $2000 + Canon body to the A700 for $1200 you do get more features, weather seals, full frame etc. But compare apples to apples and hold off on the subpar talk.



I
Click to expand...


I think he was referring to the fact there are 100x more lenses and accessories out for Canon and Nikon that can be had for a dime a dozen. Not the actual quality of camera's made by Sony and other brands. (at least thats how I took it)
 
WesM63 said:
I think he was referring to the fact there are 100x more lenses and accessories out for Canon and Nikon that can be had for a dime a dozen. Not the actual quality of camera's made by Sony and other brands. (at least thats how I took it)
Click to expand...

I agree, I think he was talking more about the maturity of the Canon/Nikon brands and lines than the Sony inferiorness. I have played with both the A350 and A700 and found while they were good, quick cameras the tell-tale AF problem came out quite often. This is something that would annoy the living crap outta me. This is only because Sony has not worked out all the bugs in their systems yet, give them a few Firmware updates and I am sure it will be good to go. But for now the Canon and Nikon lines just have more to offer.
 
greg your sig is too long

nifty fifty is generaly the f/1.4, the thrifty fifty is the 1.8 (in general).

Maybe Im biased, but yes, go canon. Sony's system is immature, nikon's lower offerings have shit AF points and no onboard focus motor. Canon gives you plenty of room for expansion and a mature system of accessories and lenses.
 
Kaolinchemist said:
Sony Subpar??? On what do you base this reasoning? Pure Canon bias?? Are you familiar with the A700 and the wonderful Minolta lenses, not to mention the Carl Zeiss glass that Sony has put out this year?? Also the A700 is only $1200 cmon, give me a break subpar geeesh. The A900 full frame is coming out soon as well. So please make educated statenments about gear.


Canon makes good gear yes, but Sony does as well for a very good price with IN BODY STABILIZATION to boot. Yes if you compare a $2000 + Canon body to the A700 for $1200 you do get more features, weather seals, full frame etc. But compare apples to apples and hold off on the subpar talk.



I
Click to expand...


The Canon body is 1200 too...the sony is not any cheaper.

In body IS is debatable, it is more effective when tweaked for the focal length and integrated into the lens. Hence why Nikon and Canon, the two full professional camera makers, have IS in the lens.

Carl Zeiss via Sony is also not even close to what the old Zeiss stuff was like. It is mostly just the name now, not the same insane optics of decades past.

Yes, it is a decent camera, and yes they are gaing ground, but sony is still a little fish in a pond filled with much much bigger fish with much much more experience.
 
Grentz said:
The Canon body is 1200 too...the sony is not any cheaper.

In body IS is debatable, it is more effective when tweaked for the focal length and integrated into the lens. Hence why Nikon and Canon, the two full professional camera makers, have IS in the lens.

Carl Zeiss via Sony is also not even close to what the old Zeiss stuff was like. It is mostly just the name now, not the same insane optics of decades past.

Yes, it is a decent camera, and yes they are gaing ground, but sony is still a little fish in a pond filled with much much bigger fish with much much more experience.
Click to expand...

Carl Zeiss means nothing now. My roommates brand new P&S from sony has the 'carl zeiss' stamp of approval.

Also, I am not a canon fan boy. I am a Nikon fan boy. The build and optical quality of Nikon lenses are superior to Canon IMO. L series glass is good, but the 70-200VR, and the 14-24mm... while canon's lenses are great, I feel like because Nikon doesn't have such a large spread of lenses, the quality isn't as diluted.

Anyway. Lower end, canon has the upper hand now. Back in the day's of the d50/d70... d50 was by far the better choice.

Now semi-pro's have the d300, which is FAR better then anything canon has to offer in the semi-pro level.

30D's are nice, and 40D's are nicer, but they don't even compare to the d300.
 
if it isn't able to shoot in raw then its not a pro camera! You will want to shoot in raw because its completly uncompressed and would allow you to change exposure and what not via a way better tool: photoshop. Keep in mind, raw files are pretty large, so your going to want a camera that shoots onto an SD card and your going to want the 2GB SD card.
 
Bennyb said:
Carl Zeiss means nothing now. My roommates brand new P&S from sony has the 'carl zeiss' stamp of approval.

Also, I am not a canon fan boy. I am a Nikon fan boy. The build and optical quality of Nikon lenses are superior to Canon IMO. L series glass is good, but the 70-200VR, and the 14-24mm... while canon's lenses are great, I feel like because Nikon doesn't have such a large spread of lenses, the quality isn't as diluted.

Anyway. Lower end, canon has the upper hand now. Back in the day's of the d50/d70... d50 was by far the better choice.

Now semi-pro's have the d300, which is FAR better then anything canon has to offer in the semi-pro level.

30D's are nice, and 40D's are nicer, but they don't even compare to the d300.
Click to expand...

Did you mean to quote me? Most of what you said was what I was saying :p
I never made a Canon vs. Nikon debate either (I think both are great, pick your system!) ;)

I agree with your points, and you are correct...the D200 and D300 are in a class above the 30D and 40D, its always been like that. Nikon and Canon are not even in the same Semi-Pro class (30D, 40D, D200, D300) and really are not in competition there. The prices (Nikon is about $600-$800 more) and features (Nikon has more) distinguish them.

Nikon vs. Canon is personal pref. really. It can go either way, both make excellent glass and bodies. I have seen tests showing the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS beat the Nik, but I have also seen the Nik beat the Canon in tests by others :rolleyes:
 
MrWizard6600 said:
Keep in mind, raw files are pretty large, so your going to want a camera that shoots onto an SD card and your going to want the 2GB SD card.
Click to expand...


CF is fine as well, CF is cheaper for larger capacities anyways as well. Plus CF is more rugged for pros.
 
Grentz said:
Did you mean to quote me? Most of what you said was what I was saying :p
I never made a Canon vs. Nikon debate either (I think both are great, pick your system!) ;)

I agree with your points, and you are correct...the D200 and D300 are in a class above the 30D and 40D, its always been like that. Nikon and Canon are not even in the same Semi-Pro class (30D, 40D, D200, D300) and really are not in competition there. The prices (Nikon is about $600-$800 more) and features (Nikon has more) distinguish them.

Nikon vs. Canon is personal pref. really. It can go either way, both make excellent glass and bodies. I have seen tests showing the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS beat the Nik, but I have also seen the Nik beat the Canon in tests by others :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't know... I'd take a 40D over a d200. Really the only thing the d200 has over the 40D is the build quality, everything else about the d200 is not really even close to as good as the 40D.

But... 8 fps is WAYYY too much fun.

It's a shame their entry level stuff is trash because they decided to remove the focus motors for some reason...
 
Yup, it kinda goes 30D then D200 then 40D then D300 ;) All are very nice and capable though, I love my 30D still.

I agree, I think Nikon shot themselves in the foot with the whole focus issue.

With Canon it is easy since they just went to integrated focus motors. People switched, and they had issues back in the day when they did it, but it is now long done and overwith. Today Nikon still has to deal with the dual format of lenses and the issue of in body focus motors not being on all their cameras.

I know Canon now has dual format as well in the form of EF-S for the 1.6x crop cameras, but that is a bit smaller of an issue as for the SLR newbies, everything still will work and EF-S is actually a way to get the SLR world newbies into some better and/or more economical glass (in addition to having lenses that are perfected for 1.6x crop cameras like the 17-55 IS and 10-22). The pros progressing to bodies that will not take EF-S nowadays already will know whats what with the EF-S vs. EF and such.
 
Grentz said:
I know Canon now has dual format as well in the form of EF-S for the 1.6x crop cameras, but that is a bit smaller of an issue as for the SLR newbies, everything still will work and EF-S is actually a way to get the SLR world newbies into some better and/or more economical glass (in addition to having lenses that are perfected for 1.6x crop cameras like the 17-55 IS and 10-22). The pros progressing to bodies that will not take EF-S nowadays already will know whats what with the EF-S vs. EF and such.
Click to expand...
The thing with EF-S is its not even an issue. What can use EF-S benefits from having the wider glass available, the bodies that cant accept those EF-S lenses dont need it, as they have ghe 16/17mm lenses available which are just as wide and higher quality to boot.
 
infamus said:
What would be a good starter SLR camera. Brands and models would help. Looking to spend nearly my whole tax rebate($500-$600)

Been using PS for a little while and using basic cameras. Looking to get into photography as a hobby and need some help choosing.
Click to expand...

I think alot of what people are saying that in the DSLR world 500 to 600 doesn't go as far as you like. Now you can get your self a used Rebel XT or 20D for that price and a 50mm 1.8 II lens, but you will be limited in your focal range. Now it's probably the best start, except I am worried you might out grow that combination in the near future (under a year). You are almost better off waiting a little and saving up a few hundred more and getting a new Rebel XTi and 18-55 IS (new kit lens) then expanding from there.

I gues the question is how deep do you want to get in to this game? It's very very very deep (AKA EXPENSIVE).
 
Bennyb said:
Really... just avoid Olympus and Sony... or any other brand besides Canon or Nikon. I think that it is really stupid to limit yourself, even if you plan only being a hobbiest, to these subpar brands. The cameras they make are fine, but you'll be better off with a canon or nikon in the long run.

Avoid the d60 and d40 like the plague, another pointless way to limit yourself in the event that you do become interested in photography.

The d50 may be old... but it has a spectacular sensor and will give you amazing pictures.
Click to expand...

I do agree with Avoid the D40&D60, but the Oly and Sony's are not crap. Not even close to being subpar. They don't have the lens line up that Nikon and Canon have, and they aren't best of breed, but they are very good systems.
 
GLSauron said:
The thing with EF-S is its not even an issue. What can use EF-S benefits from having the wider glass available, the bodies that cant accept those EF-S lenses dont need it, as they have ghe 16/17mm lenses available which are just as wide and higher quality to boot.
Click to expand...

Exactly ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top