I don't know what to do... Will you people give me some advice?

[Senor Hound]

If you do not have a "need" for a DSLR, there is no reason to get one.

"Wanting one" is a good reason. But then if you "wanted" one, you will not need us to convince you.

"Can someone give me some pointers on what they would do as far as buying what you want or buying what is easiest to buy?" UH?
I find this question more suited for asking while laying back and directed at someone you pay $150/hr, once a week.

I do want one, but I was raised poor and I have problems shelling out large sums of money, even for stuff I want. That being said the main reason I want an slr is it seems the images are more crisp, you can actually use ISOs over 100 (200 on my camera is pushing it), and I want my depth of field to be able to be shallower. My lens now has an f/2.8, but I did the math and this equals an f/8 depth of field on an slr (and an f/11 on film). Needless to say, I have problems with portraits and other things of the sort.

 

[Mystwalker]

I do want one, but I was raised poor and I have problems shelling out large sums of money, even for stuff I want. That being said the main reason I want an slr is it seems the images are more crisp, you can actually use ISOs over 100 (200 on my camera is pushing it), and I want my depth of field to be able to be shallower. My lens now has an f/2.8, but I did the math and this equals an f/8 depth of field on an slr (and an f/11 on film). Needless to say, I have problems with portraits and other things of the sort.

Seems like you have all the answers yourself.

Not sure where you got your aperture (f/2.8, f/8, f/11) calculations. I always thought aperture size was fixed, based on lens, regardless of camera type.

 

[Senor Hound]

Seems like you have all the answers yourself.

Not sure where you got your aperture (f/2.8, f/8, f/11) calculations. I always thought aperture size was fixed, based on lens, regardless of camera type.

It is, but the resultant depth of field isn't. At, say f/2.8, the full film will have a certain depth of field, the digital 1.5 sensor will have a greater depth of field, and then on my little point and shoot, it ends up being somewhere along the same depth of field that f/12 would produce on a film camera.

I really don't think I have all of the answers, though. But I guess my question isn't answerable except for by my therapist (but I only see her every other week, and this isn't one of them... lol).

 

[Battou]

Well....You could test your conviction to the purchase of a dSLR by getting a film SLR and a couple lenses on E-bay or something like that for forty or fifty bucks, run your self some shots threw it for a month or two. Then if you are absolutely sure a dSLR is what you need to accomplish what you want, go down to the closest Photo shop and then take out both the Canon and the Nikon out for a test drive.

Then phence off the film SLR and lenses for what you paid for them, or keep them and delve further into film later on.

It's a lot easier to spend money on something when you know you want it and what to expect from it.

 

[Rhubarb]

I don't agree, sure many of us spend a small fortune on equipment BECAUSE we can afford it.

There's no reason to advise someone with less $$ to stay out of photography, especially with digital which doesn't have any on-going expenses.

If you were limited to one lens and handheld would your truely give up photography altogether.. I bet not.

:hail:

 

[visualpoetry]

Start low end. Buy a Rebel and use the Canon lenses you already have (assuming the're compatible). The body is around $500, I think. Even though it's low end - it's truly a great camera especially to start on. I love mine. I have the xti.