What camera is best for me?

Hello everybody, I would be very grateful if some of you could help me make an

informed decision on which DSLR camera to buy. I have been doing a ton of

research, but have been unable to make a decision. My budget is around $1000 and

I am very much an amateur. Which means I wouldn't mind the kit lens because I

plan on taking a long time learning about the camera and photography. I come

from a filmmaker background, so I am already familiar with manipulation of

light, etc... My intentions with the camera are to be all purpose. I want to be

able to handle macro/studio work such as miniature models using clay. I also

plan on using it for street, portrait and landscape including skies. As I said

before, I am an amateur so I plan

on taking my time, playing around and getting to know the camera and reviewing

the techniques and technical side. I am also aware that you spend your money on

glass, and upgrade the body later. However, I don't make a lot of money so I

would like to buy a rather nice body that will last me, so I can focus on

getting a nice collection of glass, then much later upgrade the body.

 

Thanks in advance!

Alexander, it seems that most good entry-level/enthusiast DSLRs will more or less fit your needs. If you're able to be more specific about what you shoot, what you want to "specialize", and other relevent information, we will be able to give you more specific recommendations.

 

Your budget allows you to get anything from "the cheapest DSLR out there" to something that falls into the semi-pro category. (Nikon D40 to Canon's 40D with the rebate) Of course, buying a more expensive camera means you'll end up having less money for lenses and accessories. For exmaple, if you get a Nikon D40 with the 18-55 kit lens, you'll have enough funding left to get a telephoto zoom, a 50 1.8 prime, and another lens, flash or accessory item; the funding can be used to purchase a single more expensive item as well. While if you end up getting a Canon 40D for $940, you will need to go over your budget by $200-$300 to have a kit zoom and a fast 50 1.8 prime. Both of these set-ups are perfectly good, but they address the needs of different users; as the first is a well-rounded beginner set-up with a entry-level camera, while the latter is a ultra-simple/dirt-cheap set-up with a semi-pro model.

Specifically, I want to set up scenes using clay and found items, and make miniature sets, and photograph them. Basically making a tiny studio (macro/studio). I also want to be able to do portraits, for example putting up a sheet, and taking photographs of a model friend, I also want to be able to just walk around outside and take photos, whether it is flowers, landscape, the sky or simply just interesting people or things. In this site's buyers guide, they suggested getting a lens similar to your own eye's perspective, in order to learn better. So I don't entirely mind waiting on zoom. I want to be good and I am less interested in using it as a P&S.

Since you're going to be doing studio photography, I think you'll almost unavoidably get

into using a whole lighting set-up. Although I'm not too into that, I think the semi-pro

models (or better) will work better with studio lighting.

 

>> " I want to set up scenes using clay and found items, and make miniature sets, and

photograph them. Basically making a tiny studio (macro/studio)."

 

You might going to need a macro lens in the long run.

 

>> "I also want to be able to just walk around outside and take photos, whether it is

flowers, landscape, the sky or simply just interesting people or things"

 

A basic kit zoom, which is fairly cheap could definitely get you started. Learn with it,

and upgrade when it's necessary.

 

>> "In this site's buyers guide, they suggested getting a lens similar to your own eye's

perspective, in order to learn better"

 

Getting a normal lens (prime) is a good idea. A 50mm is a normal lens on 35mm and

FF DSLR. Since you probably can't yet afford a FF camera, a 35mm or 28mm (if you

like it a little wider) prime lens will work more properly as a normal lens on an APS-C

DSLR. These are not too expensive and are nice lenses to have.

 

>> "I also want to be able to do portraits, for example putting up a sheet, and taking

photographs of a model friend"

 

Although a 50mm lens is not a normal lens, but instead a short telephoto lens on APS-C

DSLRs, it's actually a cheap and useful lens to have. Not only a 50mm lens will

generally offer you relatively the largest max. aparture setting per price (which is

excellent for low-light), but its short telephoto status on APS-C cameras also makes its

prospective ideal for portraits.

 

So far, along with your budget restriction, I don't see that you need a telephoto lens or

a high quality normal zoom yet. A flash would probably be nice to have.

 

Canon EOS 40D ($940)

Canon EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS zoom lens ($170)

Canon EF 35 2 prime ($240) or Canon EF 28 2.8 prime ($180)

Canon EF 50 1.8 prime ($90) or Canon EF 50 2.5 Macro prime ($250) if you want the

cheapest macro out there (although it only offer 1:2 magnification, it's probably enough

for you)

 

Since Canon flashes are relatively expensive, you can start off with a generic flash if

you need one.

 

The set-up a few hundred dollars over your budget, I personally feel that it's ok not to

get the 35 or 28, if you want to make the package more affordable.

 

*In case you're interested in buying Nikon's D40/D40x/D60, please note that they only

AF with Nikon's AF-S/SF-I lenses.

 

Obviously there are cheaper choices such as the Nikon D40/D40x/D60 and D80,

Canon's XT, XTi, XSi, and the new Xs, Sony's A100, A200, A300, and A350, and so

on...I think the 40D is currently the cheapest "serious" camera out there (a good deal

with the rebate).

Is there any reason to go with Canon over Nikon, other then the price?

Both Canon and Nikon are good brands, and they both have large crowds of "loyalists".

Their models tend to be placed between each other in the marketplace to avoid direct

competition (for example, the D80 positioned is between the Canon 40D and Canon

XSi).

 

The availability of certain lenses a photographer wants to use tend to sway his or her

choice of brand. There are many lenses Canon makes that Nikon doesn't have a

counterpart for, and vise versa. Nikon is often said to have a better flash system. Nikon

makes a larger selection of small sensor only zooms, including the 3 versions of the 18-

55, 18-70, 18-135, 18-200, 17-55, 16-85, and the two versions of the 55-200; nikon

also makes a few high quality lenses Canon lack, such as the 200-400 f/4 and the new

14-24 f/2.8. Nikon cameras are compatible with a large selection of lenses (with various

functional restrictions) dated back before the introduction of AF, although the functional

restrictions could be very problematic in certain cases. Canon EOS cameras are full

compatible with every single EOS ever made since 1987, although they don't work with

the older FD lenses. Canon makes a large selection of modern prime lenses with their

own AF motors; Nikon has less choices, and their prime lenses's AF are mostly driven

by a screw powered by a in-body motor, which is often considered to be inferior.

Canon makes more mid-priced good lenses. Canon makes a whole line of f/4 L series

lenses (17-40 f/4L, 24-105 F/4L IS, 70-200 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L IS), which are some

relatively more afforable professional grade lenses that Nikon lack.

 

As of now, the best reason to get Nikon is to use the D3/D300, because these are

excellent cameras; and Canon by definition, don't make anything similar to them.

(although many will certainly disagree) Nevertheless, I consider the 40D to be superior

to the D80, and the Xsi to be superior to the D60/D40.

 

Overall Canon's system offer more choices, including cheaper choices. But that could

mean nothing to you if you got no use with the lenses Canon makes that Nikon lack.

 

Canon's mount is considered superior from an engineering prospective. It's wider than

Nikon's (54mm vs. 44mm), which is said to allow the easy design of large aparture

lenses (Canon makes two f/1.2 lenses that Nikon lack); I personally think it's somewhat

stronger/more durable too. Nikon's complete and modern F mount require a spring

loaded lever mechanically controlled by the body to modify the lens' aparture setting by

moving around a small metal lever on the lens. Many of Nikon's lenses require to be

screw driven by the body in order to AF, and there's a whole set-up on the mount to

allow its proper fitting and operation. To me this set-up appears to be somewhat

complex, and it's not exactly the most durable thing out there.

 

Of course you have to make the decision yourself. My opinion will almost certainly

anger many brand loyalists.

"Canon EOS 40D ($940) Canon EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS zoom lens ($170) Canon EF 35 2 prime ($240) or Canon EF 28 2.8 prime ($180) Canon EF 50 1.8 prime ($90) or Canon EF 50 2.5 Macro prime ($250) if you want the cheapest macro out there (although it only offer 1:2 magnification, it's probably enough for you)."

 

If I go with the 40D, what is the most basic lens I would need just to run around and learn about my camera? The Canon EF 50 1.8 prime?

If you're just out doing some casual/candid/travel photography, the 18-55 IS is a nice and versatile zoom lens that can more or less "cover everything". It has IS (image stabilization) to compensate for the "shaky camera" effect at lower shutter speeds and telephoto settings (although it's not really a telephoto). Please note that this lens lacks the "pro" build quality (magnesium alloy body/metal mount/Full time USM AF), and its not fast (f/2.8 max. aparture or larger).

 

If you go by-the-book, the EF 35mm or 28mm prime lens is a normal lens on the 40D. They more or less imitate the "normal" look and is good for running around and learning about your camera. The 50 1.8 is a little long, but it does have the bonuses of being faster (larger max aparture - better for low light) and longer (which makes it a good portrait lens). I enjoy using the 50 1.8 as a walkaround-lens, but it can't do everything you might need to do.

Since you already seem to know about photography, I would advise

against the 18-55 IS kit lens and choose the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 instead. It's

a bit more expensive but I think you will use the wider aperture. I would then

pass on the 35mm or 28mm primes - the f/2.8 zoom would be good enough.

 

As a macro either the 50mm f/2.5 macro or the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 would be excellent

choices.

 

You can also save a bit on the body by going with the XSi or the XTi instead of

the 40D - try them on in a camera shop to see which one you feel more

comfortable with.

 

Don't forget about flashes and lighting setup - there's another long story to go

into there...

Best bargains right now:

 

Pentax K200D (10MP with in-body stabilization) with kit lens is now under $600 after $100 mail-in rebate. (By comparison, the Nikon D80 with 18-55 kit lens sells for $850. It uses a similar chip to the one in the Pentax [sony provides them to both companies], with a more robust body but without image stabilization.)

 

Olympus E-510 (also 10MP with in-body stabilization, just supplanted by the E-520 model) with two kit lenses (14-42mm and 40-150mm lenses [28-84mm and 80-300mm equivalents]) is just $650, or $530 with just the 14-42mm kit lens. (The E-520 with 14-42 kit lens is $700)

Is there any reason to get a zoom lens, like the 17-50mm, for any purpose other then to zoom? Even when I use P&S cameras I hardly ever zoom, after working with video it is ingrained just to physically move closer or further to avoid distortion of the background.

 

I read up on the Canon EOS 40D and it is really good, most of the complaints are trivial. However, I have been unimpressed by the XSi and the XTi. Through out my research the Olympus and Pentax are up there with Canon and Nikon, but I just haven't heard a lot of fuss over them. Time and time again I hear if you are serious about photography, go with Canon or Nikon. While their bodies might be rather equal, it seems Nikon and Canon have a better and more wide range of glass. Even the digital SLR guide on the this site only barely mentions the other brands, and just a little on Olympus because of its Four-Thirds concept. They suggest that Canon and Nikon are a better investment due to their glass.

"Is there any reason to get a zoom lens, like the 17-50mm, for any purpose other

then to zoom?"

 

No, there isn't, you are right. If are happy with primes, then you should get

the primes. My choice was the Tamron was because the zoom was quality-wise close

to the primes and I wanted the zoom flexibility.

 

Part of the problem also comes from the dreaded APS-C crop factor - there just

aren't affordable fast wide-angle prime lenses for that format. Every producer

now thinks all people want is zooms and the old 35mm ones have become too long.

 

If one were to stick to full-frame sensor cameras (like the 5D) then yes, a nice

set of primes (24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm) would be more than enough.

There are only two realistic reasons to get zoom: #1 A zoom can help you get a more ideal composition when you can't move around. #2 A zoom generally covers a range of focal lengths. Many beginners tend to use zoom instead of "sneaker zoom", but zoom is actually more useful when you want the prospective of a certain focal length. (85mm-135mm in 35mm for portraits) (wide angle - the ground appear to be falling over, things close to you appears bigger, so you can exaggerate the foreground)

I am definitely going over my budget. The total price comes to about $1600, but it comes with the Canon EOS 40D, I think a 15-70mm lens (but I don't remember at the moment), a bag, 2 batteries and a 2 Gig CF card 60x. Anything I am missing or should reconsider?

Please note that the camera already comes with 1 battery. A 2GB CF card is enough if you don't shoot too much; you might going to need a back-up just in case.

 

Are you getting any other lenses? flash? tripod?

The special kit comes with a lens and an extra battery, plus a bag. Unfortunately a 2 GB CF 60x card is like $80, so buying an extra one is pushing it, budget wise. The non-special kit comes with a lens as well, but the lens has a larger range and seems to be less quality.

>> "Unfortunately a 2 GB CF 60x card is like $80"

 

That sounds weird, because I can get a 2GB card for $25 or a 4GB card for $40.