Looking to buy DSLR - PhotoCamel

Cait · 05-21-2007

I'm new to digital photography, and am limited in my knowlegde of many things, but I'm looking to purchase a digital camera to get started on the road to becoming sucessful in photography. I don't know which manufactuer to go with, Nikon or Canon, and honestly when I read reviews on camera's, I come away confused! I know that I want a DSLR, with at least six megapixels, but that's it. When it comes to all the accessories and extra features I'm lost. Right now I'm not looking to go out and blow a ton of money on equipment, I just need a reliable camera that will produce good images, that I might be able to sell. I know about composition, but when it comes to the technical stuff I'm in dire need of help. What kind of lenses do you need when first starting out? I heard once that if you buy a nikon, you can't use a canon lens on it, is this true? Well anyway, if there's anyone out there who might be able to help me I'd appreciate it.

Cait

cyclohexane · 05-21-2007

Quote:

I know that I want a DSLR, with at least six megapixels, but that's it.

Well, given that you don't want to spend a lot of money, the entry-level DSLRs or ones just above entry-level should do you just fine. The Nikon D40 is cheap (well, it's the cheapest DSLR you can find new-in-box), 6 megapixels, great image quality as Nikon's worked with that sensor a long time.

Quote:

What kind of lenses do you need when first starting out?

It depends on what you intend to shoot. The kit lenses are perfectly fine places to discover what you need, and then you can add lenses based on those needs.

Quote:

I heard once that if you buy a nikon, you can't use a canon lens on it, is this true?

Yep. Likewise, if you buy a Canon camera, you can't use Nikon lenses ("Nikkors") on it*.

Nikons use the F-mount. Canons use the EF mount. They are not the same, and therefore incompatible.

*There are adapters allowing you to use some older lenses made by Nikon, but you'd be stuck in strict manual control. This doesn't sound like a situation you want to be in based on what you've said.

Cait · 05-21-2007

Thanks for that. I have been looking at the D40, and was wondering if it would be a good choice to make. Since I'm just starting out I know that I'm not going to immediately have all the things that I need at my fingertips. The main thing that I'm struggling with is just knowing what certain things mean, like for instance today I was reading on nikonusa.com about the D40, which was listed as a kit that included a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens, and all that passes through my mind is, "What?" I would like to be well educated in what this stuff means, I have a small idea, but am really confused most of the time. Are there any places on the web that I can go to, that will just give me a basic idea of what certain things mean? And what is your opinion on the differences between Canon and Nikon? Like, what are the pros and cons of both?

Cait

cyclohexane · 05-21-2007

Quote:

Are there any places on the web that I can go to, that will just give me a basic idea of what certain things mean?

See this piece titled "Making Sense of Lens Acroynms".

Quote:

And what is your opinion on the differences between Canon and Nikon? Like, what are the pros and cons of both?

That's a question that's divided the forum, practically caused people to leave, and made us all look like babbling fools. "Canon or Nikon" is like debating politics on the internet... =)

We need to know what you are shooting before we recommend one brand over another, and based on my personal experiences with both brands what I'd recommend would surprise many.

blumesan · 05-22-2007

Cait,
What's missing in your initial post is some information about your experience in photography in general. Have you owned and used a camera? A film SLR? A camera with interchangeable lenses? It sounds a bit like the answers are mostly NO. If that is the case I believe you need to start with some reading material that covers the very basic issues like aperture, shutter speed, difference in lens focal lengths, etc. Until you have these topics under your belt you will remain confused about whatever you read concerning cameras and digital cameras in particular.

I am sure everyone on this forum would agree that you should buy a camera that fits your needs, but first you have to be able to define your needs in terms of some of the basic elements of what cameras do and how they do it.

Cheers/Mike

Douglas · 05-22-2007

As others have said, people need to know what you want to shoot. And your experience with photography in general.

A lens you would use to shoot sports would be different from one you would shoot at family gatherings or on trips and tours. And both would be different from a 3rd if you want get closeups of plants and bugs.

The kit lens that comes with the d40 would handle things around the home or general photographs. Pictures of the family, scenics, nature (to an extent)

But if you want to shoot the kids playing baseball (just saying as example) the lens wouldnt work if youre behind home plate and theyre in left field. The child becomes little more then a speck on the image.

People could throw out all sorts of lens suggestions, but then you would spend $1000's and have lenses sitting in a case that you never use.

Like, when I get my d40x, I will use the 18-55 and also use my non-digital lens which is a 24-120. But becomes a 36-180 when attached to a digital camera. Now those 2 lenses fit all my needs. But thats me.

Cait · 05-22-2007

Yes, I know that I have been really vague about a lot of things.I’m finishing up highschool and am just now entering into the world of photography and grasping the meaning of things. My experience is limited tp what little I have read. Right now I’m just using the family Kodak Easyshare for whatever pictures I take. What do I want to shoot? Scenery, portraits, and maybe someday wildlife. I know I have to work my way up and gain more knowledge. I’ve been reading up on a few things and have been slowly gaining a small idea of what some things mean. Right now I’m reading a book by Chris George called Total Digital Photography, and also Digital Photography for Dummies, because well, the tittle seemed too perfect for me.
I don’t want to start any controversy over what is better, Nikon or Canon, so I suppose I will just step back and do the research for myself. My uncle told me that he went with Canon because Canon’s have less noise, but maybe someone would argue with that, I don’t know. I just need something with the basics for my first time SLR, and when I get more knowledge about lenses I would like to build up from there. Thanks for all your advice
Cait

Cait · 05-22-2007

thanks for suggesting the page about lenses, it helped a lot

cyclohexane · 05-22-2007

Scenery, portraits, and wildlife? A Nikon D40 or D40x with the included kit lens will do the job for the first two. A Canon Rebel XTi with the included kit lens will also do the job for the first two. You're not going to see a big difference in performance from any of the three cameras; the D40's image will be less enlargeable due to the lower resolution, but that's about it. You'll save some money on storage (memory cards, hard drives, etc.) with the D40.

Having used all three of these (the Canon more than the other two), while I really liked the Rebel, I found that the shutter release required a really hard squeeze to capture the photo, which would affect the stability of the camera at slower shutter speeds. I prefer the Nikon D40/x, and not just because I already owned Nikon equipment. The camera feels better in my hands, the image quality of the D40x is as toe to toe with the Rebel (better in some aspects; see below).

I'd get the D40 unless you really want 10 MP (the resolution difference between 6 and 10 MP is small), and start shooting like mad.

Quote:

My uncle told me that he went with Canon because Canon’s have less noise

The difference on entry-level cameras is negligible, and actually overall (in my opinion) in Nikon's favor. The Nikon D80 and D40x make a superior images overall, even at high ISO, when compared to the Rebel XTi/400D. Yes, the XTi/400D has less luminance noise ("grain") and less smearing of minute detail due to noise reduction, but I can't see the difference in my normal print sizes. What I do see at normal print sizes is the loss of color saturation at high ISO in the Rebel's images, while the Nikons retain much better color saturation, and they control the chroma noise (color noise) better. In general, my audience doesn't really complain about grain unless it's extremely pronounced, but they will complain about bad colors.

At the professional level (I doubt you're interested in a pro camera right now), Canon does have the advantage in noise handling. I, however, do not agree with some that noise is the big end-all issue in terms of image quality, so take that as you well. Again, you have to consider your normal print sizes, your final output, etc. Almost everything looks good resized for web or on newsprint, while not everything looks good at 11x14.

------------------------------------------

Now, wildlife, you'll be in a world of hurt in terms of money; I don't mean the camera, I mean the lenses. I'd recommend budgeting for something like college first, and then going from there. =)

Cait · 05-22-2007

That information is helpful, but it seems like as you get deeper into digital photography it gets harder to determine for yourself what features are most important to you. I have also been looking at the Rebel XTi, and was impressed with the quality of the sample pictures that were displayed with it, that the camera is capable of capturing. Of course I know that other components must have been involved with getting those images as well. I had an idea that wildlife photography would be a big money issue when it came to the lenses, and right now I doubt I'm ready to start in on telephotos. If I bought a D40 or Rebel XTi, what would you say about adding a macro lens to my system eventually? Have you had any experience with those? Also, I have another question when it comes to storing photos. I know that it's possible to loose valuable information while storing pics on the computer, and I can only imagine that I've messed up tons of pictures because I have no idea how to protect them from loosing information.

cyclohexane · 05-22-2007

By the way, if you can find one, a Rebel XT (not XTi) new would also be a great place to start; you could save some money over the XTi, especially if you don't need 10 MP.

Quote:

it seems like as you get deeper into digital photography it gets harder to determine for yourself what features are most important to you

...more like with photography in general. =)

In case you're curious, for work (I shoot for a student paper) these are my priorities:

Durability (ability to hold up if I do something stupid)
Controls (ability to change settings easily)
Speed (how long I have to wait for it take the darned picture, how fast it autofocuses, etc.)

For recreation, these are my priorities:

Image Quality (obviously, I want something that looks good)
Size (no need to carry a brick around when I'm just looking to have fun)

Obviously, you'll have different priorities, but those are just some examples of how I select my stuff, so hopefully you'll have an idea of what you're looking for. =)

Quote:

If I bought a D40 or Rebel XTi, what would you say about adding a macro lens to my system eventually?

That's a great idea. With the D40, you won't have autofocus with the cheaper ones (Nikon's only put out one macro lens with the silent wave motor - "SWM"- required for autofocus with the D40), but I don't use autofocus with macro lenses frequently. Instead, I choose the reproduction size (shown on the focus scale) manually and physically move the camera. On the Nikons, a little green dot will light up in the viewfinder when the image is in focus.

Then again, I manual focus a lot, so the idea of not having AF with many lenses while using the D40 doesn't bother me. Heck, my film cameras, which I still use, both predate autofocus.

In general, every camera manufacturer makes good lenses for its cameras (there are, of course, bad lenses in each line). Boht Canon and Nikon make good macro lenses.

Quote:

I have another question when it comes to storing photos. I know that it's possible to loose valuable information while storing pics on the computer

Never save over the original, especially if you shoot in JPEG mode. Save copies.

If you have more workflow questions, there are plenty of people in the Image Editing/Color Management or Photography Discussion sections ready to help, as storing photos is a brand-free thing. =)

badpickev · 05-23-2007

things i looked at when shopping for a dslr.

name - its funny it means something.

dont look at just nikon or canon, there are other fine names.

optics - lets face it, its all about the glass(lenses).

for all you do, glass is the most durable thing you buy. what type of lenses are available to get, ans which ones are the good ones.

sensor - this is the film

the types and advantages/disadvantages of the different sensors can make or break you.

looks - how does the file, and print look

no matter how much you spend, if you cant get a good file or print is just wasted money. this is also where image quality (IQ) comes in.

post processing - how much is needed

some cameras need more than others. do oyu want to spend youe life doing PP?

expandability - how far can i go. in extreme needs, where can i go to.

for these reasons i got a fuji.

in my opinion and experience. Nikon glass is better, canon files need a lot of PP and look flat. more sensor types in the Nikon camp. the iq of the fuji was better. the best looking files came from the sigma and the fuji, the sigma could basically take only sigma glass. the fuji needs little or no PP.

so because i am lazy and hate PP and like nikon glass, i got a fuji and love it.

PavelOlavich · 05-23-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by badpickev

things i looked at when shopping for a dslr.

name - its funny it means something.

dont look at just nikon or canon, there are other fine names.

optics - lets face it, its all about the glass(lenses).

for all you do, glass is the most durable thing you buy. what type of lenses are available to get, ans which ones are the good ones.

sensor - this is the film

the types and advantages/disadvantages of the different sensors can make or break you.

looks - how does the file, and print look

no matter how much you spend, if you cant get a good file or print is just wasted money. this is also where image quality (IQ) comes in.

post processing - how much is needed

some cameras need more than others. do oyu want to spend youe life doing PP?

expandability - how far can i go. in extreme needs, where can i go to.

for these reasons i got a fuji.

in my opinion and experience. Nikon glass is better, canon files need a lot of PP and look flat. more sensor types in the Nikon camp. the iq of the fuji was better. the best looking files came from the sigma and the fuji, the sigma could basically take only sigma glass. the fuji needs little or no PP.

so because i am lazy and hate PP and like nikon glass, i got a fuji and love it.

The Name does not matter....a rose by anyother name, would smell as sweet....

Canon's do not need more or less post-processing then other brands. And spending time in post-processing does not have to take time away from shooting, or your life. So this point is moot.

In fact ALL raw images from ALL DSLR cameras need post-processing. So this point is moot.

Nikon glass is great, fantastic, and awesome. Canon glass is no less, especially in the tele ranges. For the record, both makers make great glass, so this point is mostly moot.

DSLR digital photography are not for lazy people. For highest quality, DSLR photography demands computer time post-shoot; aka post-processing. SInce RAW images are not supposed to be exposed "perfectly" like JPG's, they will come out relatively flat. They are supposed to...because raw files are not processed by the camera. This is okay. This is how it is supposed to be.

Nikon and Canon make great lenses.
Nikon and Canon make great bodies.
Nikon and Canon make great flashes.

Both offer good to great ergonomics, body and price depending.

So then if they both offer greatness in most all areas, then what is different?

In the low end bodies, not much, but as you go more advanced in bodies, the differences become greater in these areas:

1. High ISO Noise Performance. Canon provides the best noise clean up with the least loss of image detail/nuances.
2. Enlargeability. Canon's fullframe and more MP are better for this.
3. Ergonomics. Most say Nikon has the edge but this is very subjective.

Depending upon your needs, and budget, some or all of these three things may well be moot or irrelevent.

For entry-level to middle of the road bodies, either brand would serve you very well for general shooting, and you will be very happy, especially once you master some skills.

One more thing: DSLR means it is almost manditory to learn post-processing skills on the computer. But if you're just a snap-shooter, or casual user, this may not be the case for you. If you become obsessed with extracting the highest image quality, this will matter.

As far as dynamic range goes, color bit depth, Nikon and Canon offer more or less the same in the entry/middle bodies...you will have lots of fun with either.

badpickev · 05-23-2007

Quote: