Im a beginner

[elemental]

From one newb to another, dont discount the other brand names just because everyone here has Canon, Nikon or Sony. Other brands such as Pentax or Olympus make very capable cameras, and although you may not have the choice of 100 different lenses, you should be asking yourself if that is ever going to be an issue.

Yes. Make sure to include every brand available in your decision-making process. I set out to buy an entry-level DSLR thinking that the D40 was the way to go, then I considered the Rebel XT (until I held one- is that really supposed to be acceptable?). With a little more research, I found that the Pentax K100D best fit my needs, a camera I didn't know existed when I started my search.

Of the cameras you're considering, I would definitely take a D80 over a D60/D40 or any sort of Rebel. The Rebel line just doesn't seem well built to me, and the D80 is a huge step up over the D60/D40. In the "other brands" category, I would see what kind of deals are available on and read up on the Pentax K10D. It's an extremely capable camera that can probably be had for D60 money if you look in the right places, and its lens compatibility is the best in the business.

 

[Village Idiot]

Yes. Make sure to include every brand available in your decision-making process. I set out to buy an entry-level DSLR thinking that the D40 was the way to go, then I considered the Rebel XT (until I held one- is that really supposed to be acceptable?). With a little more research, I found that the Pentax K100D best fit my needs, a camera I didn't know existed when I started my search.

Of the cameras you're considering, I would definitely take a D80 over a D60/D40 or any sort of Rebel. The Rebel line just doesn't seem well built to me, and the D80 is a huge step up over the D60/D40. In the "other brands" category, I would see what kind of deals are available on and read up on the Pentax K10D. It's an extremely capable camera that can probably be had for D60 money if you look in the right places, and its lens compatibility is the best in the business.

Can the 10D do over 5 fps?

 

[Robin]

Sports eh...3 FPS might suck compared to the 5 fps out of the D200, 20D, 30D, and 40D...

I agree, if you're going for sports, an important thing you want to look for on the camera is a good continuous drive. The other important thing is a good, fast telephoto lens.

 

[elemental]

Can the 10D do over 5 fps?

No. Neither does the D80, XTi, XSi, D40, D60, A100, A200, or any other camera in the entry-level or advanced entry-level price range that I know of. Are you suggesting something?

 

[Village Idiot]

No. Neither does the D80, XTi, XSi, D40, D60, A100, A200, or any other camera in the entry-level or advanced entry-level price range that I know of. Are you suggesting something?

I did...already...up top...

20D & 30D

20's are about $400 used 30's $600ish? 30's are $700ish new.

 

[Bifurcator]

Current models that can do 5fps or better:

• Nikon D3
• Nikon D700
• Nikon D300
• Olympus E-3
• Sony DSLR-A700
• Canon EOS 40D
• Canon EOS-1D Mark III
• Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III

Antiquated models that can do 5fps or better:

• Nikon D2Xs
• Nikon D2X
• Nikon D2Hs
• Nikon D2H
• Nikon D200
• Canon EOS 30D
• Canon EOS 20D
• Canon EOS 20Da
• Canon EOS-1D
• Canon EOS-1D Mark II N
• Canon EOS-1D Mark II

 

[clupica]

One thing you must know and no one is saying is that your dSLR photos may not look as good as your Point and Shoot photos. That is because the images coming out of the dSLRs are intended to to be post processed. When you start shooting with your new dSLR the photos may not look as sharp and the better the dSLR, the more likely that technique will make a world of difference. Said another way, with a dSLR you're going to get crappy pictures unless you know how to use it and photo-editing software. If you end up shooting everything on auto, you haven't gained anything.

Don't be fooled by the glitz of "real" photography. For $1000 there are some incredible P&S cameras that may be all you ever need.

As for a lens: glass does make a difference; especialy if you don't know what you're doing. The cheap Nikon lenses (and canon too I expect) will give bad results if you use them wrong; yield barrel distortion, chromatic aberations, soft images, or pin-cushining (or all of the above in the same image). The Nikon 18-135mm lens is cheap and cheap is as cheap does. Most Nikon D80 shooters seem to eventually try to sell most of their kit lenses and buy the more expensive 18-200mm. It's still not "quality" galss but it may be the only lens an amateur ever needs.

Charlie

 

[manaheim]

One thing you must know and no one is saying is that your dSLR photos may not look as good as your Point and Shoot photos. That is because the images coming out of the dSLRs are intended to to be post processed. When you start shooting with your new dSLR the photos may not look as sharp and the better the dSLR, the more likely that technique will make a world of difference. Said another way, with a dSLR you're going to get crappy pictures unless you know how to use it and photo-editing software. If you end up shooting everything on auto, you haven't gained anything.

Well... technically not true.

First, he has gained the ability to interchange equipment ... lenses, flashes, etc. (yes, a few P&S cams have external flashes) So even if he shoots forever on auto, he has gained something.

Also... while I know this isn't exactly what you said, you have somewhat implied that if it comes off a P&S it doesn't need post processing work, whereas coming off a DSLR it does. I'm concerned at how others might interpret this as well, so I want to clarify this a bit.

P&S cameras are geared more towards the average everyday consumer. Therefore they tend to be programmed to try very hard to make as many interpretations as necessary to make the picture "look nice" at the time of capture.

DSLRs, as a class, are geared more towards an enthusiast. Enthusiasts are more concerned about capturing an image in the way they interpreted it, and don't tend to want a camera to make decisions for them because, depending on the camera and the photographer, the camera will often be wrong. DSLRs, therefore, tend to make fewer interpretations than an average point and shoot.

That being said, many/most DSLRs have some amount of automatic "P&S-style" capabilities on-board. The less expensive ones tend to be considered what I like to call "bridge cameras" and, therefore, have more of these features than the pro and semi-pro bodies. (for example, D40,D50,D60,D70,D80 all have "Auto" in addition to "Program" and tend to have modes like "Macro" and "Landscape"... D100,D200,D300 have Program mode, but that's it for the "automatic" modes)

I would personally argue that nearly every digital image would need at least a little bit of post-processing work (sharpen, tweak contrast, etc.), but that has essentially very little to do with the class of camera and more to do with how good the photographer is using it, and how much the photographer using it cares about the end result.

P&S or DSLR, if the photographer is very good, the need for post-processing work is reduced. P&S or DSLR, if the photographer doesn't care too much about the quality of the image other than it's a lovely holiday snap or something, the need for post-processing work is reduced.

Don't be fooled by the glitz of "real" photography. For $1000 there are some incredible P&S cameras that may be all you ever need.

As for a lens: glass does make a difference; especialy if you don't know what you're doing. The cheap Nikon lenses (and canon too I expect) will give bad results if you use them wrong; yield barrel distortion, chromatic aberations, soft images, or pin-cushining (or all of the above in the same image). The Nikon 18-135mm lens is cheap and cheap is as cheap does. Most Nikon D80 shooters seem to eventually try to sell most of their kit lenses and buy the more expensive 18-200mm. It's still not "quality" galss but it may be the only lens an amateur ever needs.

I agree with everything you say, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with going with inexpensive kit lenses to start. I still take the bulk of my pictures on an absolute piece of crap Nikor 28-100. In fact, some of my best pictures were taken using that lens. I have one of them printed (enlarged to 24"x36") and up on my wall and it looks fantastic.

The simple truth is that, generally:

• People new to photography will not notice weak points in cheap lenses.
• People more advance in photography will be able to largely get around weak points in cheap glass.
• Cheap lenses are cheap, so there's nothing wrong with using them until you realize you hate them and buying new ones. Very little lost.
• Cheap lenses will give you much tighter restrictions on a "perfect" image, so you will bump into the limitations of the lens faster, allowing you to learn more quickly.
• If you are new to photography, using a couple cheap lenses for a bit will let you get a clearer sense of what kind of photography you lean towards and what kind of quality lenses you would like to invest in first. (Why spend $1600 on that 80-200VR when it turns out what you really needed was the $500 10-20... this, btw, was exactly what I wound up doing.)
• Really expensive lenses suck too!

This last point is a critical one to understand. All lenses have limitations, quality issues, distortions, etc. That 18-200VR you mentioned... it's probably 5-6x as expensive as most of the typical kit lenses, and still has some issues. The 80-200VR I mentioned is 3x the cost of that and has some issues (not to mention it weighs 800lb), etc.

To some degree, lenses are an excercise in balancing what you can afford to spend with the quality you need or want, and understanding that there is a VERY harsh cost curve as you get closer to the theoretical "perfect".

BTW, as a footnote to that... prime lenses (fixed focal length) drastically reduce that cost curve. Everyone talks about the "nifty fifty", which is basically a F1.8 50mm lens with awesome optics for $109. However, that cost curve still exists in that space, as the F1.4 version of that lens is nearly 3x as much.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[elemental]

I did...already...up top...

20D & 30D

20's are about $400 used 30's $600ish? 30's are $700ish new.

Oh, I'm sorry. I certainly can't argue with either of those if our original poster is willing to go used (or track down a deal on a new 30D). They are (literally) a class above anything we've thrown around as ideas for new cameras. While I have no fondness for the Rebel line (have I mentioned that? More than once?) the 20D and 30D are excellent cameras and are a steal at those prices. I completely agree with your recommendation.

 

[Village Idiot]

Oh, I'm sorry. I certainly can't argue with either of those if our original poster is willing to go used (or track down a deal on a new 30D). They are (literally) a class above anything we've thrown around as ideas for new cameras. While I have no fondness for the Rebel line (have I mentioned that? More than once?) the 20D and 30D are excellent cameras and are a steal at those prices. I completely agree with your recommendation.

I don't care much for using rebels myself. I have a 300D that I'd like to break out just to say that I have a 3 year old DSLR that takes as good a picture as the newest stuff, with the right techniques and editing.

 

[JerryPH]

Current models that can do 5fps or better:

• Nikon D3

Got the top of the list right too... lol

Slap a DX lens on a D3 and go shoot 11 FPS.

 

[prodigy2k7]

I saw something on youtube or tv i forgot... Had 3 canon 1d mark III i think... Had 3 of them in sync shooting at 10fps...with same lens... so that it is equivalent to 30 fps... Was pretty awesome

 

[Bifurcator]

I'm waiting for someone to compose a musical tune with the different shutter speeds and sounds between a variety of models.

 

[clupica]

First, he has gained the ability to interchange equipment ...

Nothing to dispute everything you said is true. And I do like my Nikon D80 and my 10 lenses (some more than 30 years old) and I did love my N90, N70, Nikormat. (A what you say).

But SLRs and dSLRs can be a money pit. Buying a dSLR is a seroius commitment to the hobby of photography. It will take a lot of time, a lot of reading, and a lot of experimenting to gain a resonable sense that you really understand how to use your equipment.

And yes, you really do get a lot more control over how the pictures can be taken. You can better control the depth of field, the lighting, and lots of other things. But many people moving from P&S to dSLRs are disappointed in the results; at least, at first. You're right when you say you have more control but a lot of that control is in post-processing.

I love my dSLR and really missed having one the few years we had only a P&S (in digital, still had the film cameras -- just too expensive to shoot with). But a dSLR is not the best solution for everyone. And many of us have a P&S hanging around for that odd situation when we don't want to drag twenty pounds of gear out just to take a snapshot. (I've read where even some of the pros have a P&S tucked in to catch that unexpected moment).

I don't want anyone to get lost in what I'm saying. And that is simply, first thing to really decide is do you really need a dSLR or can you do what you want with a top-end P&S?

If you want to get seroius about photgraphy as a hobby, get a dSLR. If you want to get creative, get a dSLR. If you want to express your artistic self, get a dSLR. If you want to take better pictures of the family at Christmas and the kids playing in the yard, a good P&S may be all you need.

Charlie

 

[manaheim]

Nothing to dispute everything you said is true. And I do like my Nikon D80 and my 10 lenses (some more than 30 years old) and I did love my N90, N70, Nikormat. (A what you say).

But SLRs and dSLRs can be a money pit. Buying a dSLR is a seroius commitment to the hobby of photography. It will take a lot of time, a lot of reading, and a lot of experimenting to gain a resonable sense that you really understand how to use your equipment.

And yes, you really do get a lot more control over how the pictures can be taken. You can better control the depth of field, the lighting, and lots of other things. But many people moving from P&S to dSLRs are disappointed in the results; at least, at first. You're right when you say you have more control but a lot of that control is in post-processing.

I love my dSLR and really missed having one the few years we had only a P&S (in digital, still had the film cameras -- just too expensive to shoot with). But a dSLR is not the best solution for everyone. And many of us have a P&S hanging around for that odd situation when we don't want to drag twenty pounds of gear out just to take a snapshot. (I've read where even some of the pros have a P&S tucked in to catch that unexpected moment).

I don't want anyone to get lost in what I'm saying. And that is simply, first thing to really decide is do you really need a dSLR or can you do what you want with a top-end P&S?

If you want to get seroius about photgraphy as a hobby, get a dSLR. If you want to get creative, get a dSLR. If you want to express your artistic self, get a dSLR. If you want to take better pictures of the family at Christmas and the kids playing in the yard, a good P&S may be all you need.

I don't think I (nor would I ever) suggest that DSLRs are for everyone. For many people, they are a horrible idea. Granted, for some percentage of those people they're actually perfect for them and they're just being bullheaded about some issue that is more of an inconvenience than a showstopper. (such as the size of the things)

I agree that they are a moneypit, but I wasn't saying otherwise, and it can be controlled... esp. for someone new. Buy the cheap crap, it'll be years before you notice.

And on your point on the pictures being kinda crappy... yeah. Depending on the camera and what mode you use it in, your early pictures may very well suck. As I always tell people, a DSLR will let you screw up. A P&S generally will try very hard to avoid it.

The first year I had my camera my buddy and I would go out shooting... him with his Sony P&S, me with my D100. We would take the exact same shot and his would come out beautiful compared to mine. I was so annoyed.

However, after a year or so with the same equipment, I would pull off shots that he simply couldn't, and my pictures were invariably better than his (try though he may, manual mode or not).

So yeah, again... for the right person... if what you want is the best pictures you can take and a lot of ease in capturing them, then DSLRs make more sense for you. If not, keep snapping shots of gran gran and the cousins with your P&S and be happy.

But still, going back to my original point...

- post processing is more about how well you captured the image to begin with, and how much you care about it... not P&S vs. DSLR
- out of the box, even in an auto mode, a DSLR is going to give you more capabilities than any P&S, even a really good one.