First DSLR Purchase, A Bit Overwhelming

[Plank]

I'm looking to purchase my first DSLR and i'm a little overwhelmed...

Alright, I first thought, "you get what you pay for". With this nonsense philosophy I came across names like Laica, and Hasselblad. Like most, I don't have a 20k+ budget for a camera. So i started looking into Nikon and Canon DSLR's and I thought i found one I liked, The Nikon D7000. I'll be honest, the "best product" awards sported on Nikon's page next to the D7000 was pretty convincing to me that it would be a great DSLR that I could depend on for a long time and produce great quality pictures. Today, I came across an article that basically said the DSLR's body does not matter, it's all about the lens. Lens or Camera: A Guide for the Budget Minded So I went back to my "you get what you pay for" philosophy in search of a quality lens to throw on a cheap body so i can stay in a reasonable budget. I came across Carl Zeiss, which is said to be good quality lenses. Ultimately, I came up with a Canon EOS Rebel T3 body I found on Amazon for $380 and a Zeiss 35mm lens that appears to be a good all purpose lens Amazon.com: Zeiss 35mm f/2 Distagon T* ZE Manual Focus Standard Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras: Camera & PhotoWhat's your take on this? I'm starting to drive myself insane
I'm hoping someone here could help me out that has been through this already.

 

[PaulWilliams]

For your first DSLR, that lens may be a bit overkill/overwhelming. It's manual focus, which will mean that you have to focus it yourself. Not a problem, but when you're having to learn everything else on a DSLR (I'm assuming you will be using manual, and that you have no previous experience with camera settings) it may be a bit much at one time. It also is a fixed lens. So you won't be able to zoom at all. I'd recommend something like a t2i with a kit lens, or something along those lines.

 

[DMPurdy]

That is a nice lens but you still need to work the camera, and learn its functions first. I agree, the lens seems like overkill. Maybe you could just use the kit lens for a while until you really figure out what kind of shooting you primarily would like to do? Im no expert just a humble thought.

 

[petto]

Get the t3i (if thats one you like) and the kit lens and practice with that. Once you get all the camera features figured out and get a feel for what you would like to shoot you can start finding lens that will match your style. Better than wasting $$$ on lens you may never use just because they are "good" lens.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I'm looking to purchase my first DSLR and i'm a little overwhelmed...

Alright, I first thought, "you get what you pay for". With this nonsense philosophy I came across names like Laica, and Hasselblad. Like most, I don't have a 20k+ budget for a camera. So i started looking into Nikon and Canon DSLR's and I thought i found one I liked, The Nikon D7000. I'll be honest, the "best product" awards sported on Nikon's page next to the D7000 was pretty convincing to me that it would be a great DSLR that I could depend on for a long time and produce great quality pictures. Today, I came across an article that basically said the DSLR's body does not matter, it's all about the lens. Lens or Camera: A Guide for the Budget Minded So I went back to my "you get what you pay for" philosophy in search of a quality lens to throw on a cheap body so i can stay in a reasonable budget. I came across Carl Zeiss, which is said to be good quality lenses. Ultimately, I came up with a Canon EOS Rebel T3 body I found on Amazon for $380 and a Zeiss 35mm lens that appears to be a good all purpose lens Amazon.com: Zeiss 35mm f/2 Distagon T* ZE Manual Focus Standard Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras: Camera & PhotoWhat's your take on this? I'm starting to drive myself insane
I'm hoping someone here could help me out that has been through this already.

$380 for a t3i is way too cheap. Probably a scam. Those are still pretty new and retail for a lot more. Be careful when you see to good a deal. And if you plan to actually drop money for the Zeiss get the 50mm. I know people with both and they say the 50mm is the better of the two. But you could get some sigma lenses that are great quality for a lot less and get more range. They make a 17-50mm f2.8 that has a good a image quality as a prime. This would be a good first lens. Dont buy too many too soon. Wait until you really figure out what you like to shoot and then go from there. Certain lenses are geared for specific activities. Dont get in too big a rush.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

OP might want to state what kind of photography you ultimately aim to do. Get a body based on that, first.

 

[LuckySe7en]

I think he's talking about the t3 not the t3i. There is about a $300 difference between the two. I say get the t3 with the kit lens, since you're willing to spend extra cash, get a nifty fifty too. That should be enough to keep you busy for a while.

 

[chuckdee]

The body absolutely matters especially when you're comparing Canon to Nikon. Two different companies with different technologies. If I had to do it all over again, I would go with Nikon. Sincerely, Canon user for 15 years.

 

[Plank]

OP might want to state what kind of photography you ultimately aim to do. Get a body based on that, first.

I'm aiming for Portraits and Landscapes. I'm also very interested in taking macro shots. As i understand in order to have best of both worlds i'd need multiple lenses for different tasks. Is this correct?

 

[Plank]

I think he's talking about the t3 not the t3i. There is about a $300 difference between the two. I say get the t3 with the kit lens, since you're willing to spend extra cash, get a nifty fifty too. That should be enough to keep you busy for a while.

yeah, the t3 is the body i was looking at... Amazon.com: Canon EOS Rebel T3 12.2 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera and DIGIC 4 Imaging (Body): Camera & Photo

 

[analog.universe]

I agree with Bitter.. what do you want to shoot? And how much do you want to spend total?


The glass is ultimately _more_ important than the body most of the time, but that doesn't mean the body isn't important. For certain situations, the body will be more important. I would decide on Canon v. Nikon based on ergonomics personally, and I would be wary of anyone who thinks absolutely that one is better than the other.

Zeiss makes a lot of great lenses (and a couple that are just so-so). They're built to last forever, 100% metal and glass, no plastic. They are all manual focus however. For some this is a deal breaker, but again it depends on what you shoot. I have 2 Zeiss lenses because I like the ergonomics, contrast, and subtleties of the rendering, but I also have autofocus lenses. For moving subjects, and even for convenience, sometimes I'd rather have an autofocus lens mounted. Manual focus gives you more control, but requires more time and more effort. Sometimes I prefer it and sometimes not. You'll likely also need to upgrade the focusing screen in your body if you intend on manually focusing a lot, since the stock ones aren't really designed for it.

If you don't mind manual focus, the Zeiss 35/2 is a good value in their lineup. As far as the body however, I wouldn't get any of the smaller entry level bodies... This includes the Nikon D3100 and D5100, all the Canon Rebels (T3 included), and a few more. These bodies have been stripped of some essential controls in order to cut costs. Many of the parameters that you'll want to adjust during shooting have been buried in menus or button combinations, instead of having their own dedicated interface. They also have lower quality viewfinder optics, and some do not have interchangeable focusing screens. The Nikon D7000 is a great camera, as are the Canon 60D and 7D.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

You could use the 100mm for both macro and portraits. It's a good lens for $500-$600. You'll probably want wider for landscape. But it depends on your style. Landscapes don't have to be shot wide.

You could go all out and find a used 5D, which is great for portrait and landscape and macro, but not sports/action. It will give you really good high ISO performance.

Just a thought.

From what I've seen on the forum, people go a year, to year and a half, and want to upgrade from their entry level bodies. So, you could save your pennies and skip that step and it'll save you money in the long run.

 

[analog.universe]

OP might want to state what kind of photography you ultimately aim to do. Get a body based on that, first.

I'm aiming for Portraits and Landscapes. I'm also very interested in taking macro shots. As i understand in order to have best of both worlds i'd need multiple lenses for different tasks. Is this correct?

This is correct, the more you specialize your lens collection, the better the lenses will perform at specific tasks. Generally speaking, lenses that try to be more versatile trade off ultimate quality to do it.

Portraits and Macro you can take care of with a single lens... The Canon 100mm 2.8L, Nikon 105mm 2.8 Micro, and Zeiss 100mm 2.0 Makro-Planar will all excel at both portraits and macro. (The Zeiss breaks some resolution records, but has only half the magnification power of the other two. 1:2 instead of 1:1)

Landscape you can shoot with anything, but typically ultrawide lenses are preferred. Tokina 11-16, Sigma 8-16, Nikon 12-24, etc...

There are a lot of directions you can go, and as you can see, budget quickly becomes a factor.

 

[pgriz]

It's really easy to spend money. It's somewhat harder to do it intelligently. Intelligent buying implies you know exactly what it is you need and how you will use it. So all the advice above is good and useful IF you have a clear idea of what you want to do. The problem with most beginners is separating what you actually know, from what you think you know, from all kinds of mythology and wantology. And when you do that separation, the pile with what you actually know is usually pretty small. Yet that is what you need to make a good buying decision. So I will advise buying a cheap body and kit lens with enough controls (ISO, set of modes (manual, aperture priority, shutter priority), in-camera meter that can do average/spot, and AF control (so that you learn that you and the camera don't always have the same point in focus). If the body is able to save its images in RAW, so much the better. The kit lens should probably be in the 24-135 range or thereabouts so that you can experience moderate wide through moderate telephoto.

Shoot everything and anything.

Learn the basics (exposure triangle, use of aperture to control depth-of-field, use of shutter to control apprearance of movement, use of focus to direct the viewer's attention appropriately, and the use of light to highlight shape, texture, volume and mood). There are also various compositional guidelines to learn that will help in your image-making.

After a while, take stock. If you are continually stepping back because the lens is not wide enough... that's already useful info. Are you cropping your shots just to get your subject larger in the final image? Then perhaps you will want to consider a longer telephoto in your "real" system. What about low-light noise - is that something you are constantly battling with? then a camera body capable of good low-level light plus some "bright" lenses may be worth considering.

Your basic system will show you in use what you need to consider. Once you've got that under your belt, either Nikon or Canon will have systems that are excellent. But now, you will need to increase your budget, and buy into a system. That's OK, since now you have a much better idea of what you need and you'll have a better handle on the ergonomics - what feels "right".

 

[Plank]

It's really easy to spend money. It's somewhat harder to do it intelligently. Intelligent buying implies you know exactly what it is you need and how you will use it. So all the advice above is good and useful IF you have a clear idea of what you want to do. The problem with most beginners is separating what you actually know, from what you think you know, from all kinds of mythology and wantology. And when you do that separation, the pile with what you actually know is usually pretty small. Yet that is what you need to make a good buying decision. So I will advise buying a cheap body and kit lens with enough controls (ISO, set of modes (manual, aperture priority, shutter priority), in-camera meter that can do average/spot, and AF control (so that you learn that you and the camera don't always have the same point in focus). If the body is able to save its images in RAW, so much the better. The kit lens should probably be in the 24-135 range or thereabouts so that you can experience moderate wide through moderate telephoto.

Shoot everything and anything.

Learn the basics (exposure triangle, use of aperture to control depth-of-field, use of shutter to control apprearance of movement, use of focus to direct the viewer's attention appropriately, and the use of light to highlight shape, texture, volume and mood). There are also various compositional guidelines to learn that will help in your image-making.

After a while, take stock. If you are continually stepping back because the lens is not wide enough... that's already useful info. Are you cropping your shots just to get your subject larger in the final image? Then perhaps you will want to consider a longer telephoto in your "real" system. What about low-light noise - is that something you are constantly battling with? then a camera body capable of good low-level light plus some "bright" lenses may be worth considering.

Your basic system will show you in use what you need to consider. Once you've got that under your belt, either Nikon or Canon will have systems that are excellent. But now, you will need to increase your budget, and buy into a system. That's OK, since now you have a much better idea of what you need and you'll have a better handle on the ergonomics - what feels "right".

I have been taking pictures with a Nikon s6100 P&S and have learned a lot about composition ect. I carry my little camera every where I go and I have been pushing it's limits for about 3 months now. Photography has become a passion or maybe an obsession for me. I'm looking forward to learning all the manual settings a DSLR has to offer because automatic P&S settings are too tedious for me, I'd rather sit there for 5mins adjusting settings on a DSLR and shoot off a picture right the first time than tinkering with a P&S and taking multiple pictures hoping the focus is what I want for that particular picture. I'm confident i'll be into photography for a long time and that's why I want to make sure i'm doing this right the first time around because I don't want to buy stuff to learn on and spend more money upgrading in the future, I'd rather learn and grow with a professional quality camera I could depend on for a long time. My budget for a DSLR, lenses, tripod, ect. is probably around 5k and under.