Help! Moving up from a p & S to a DSLR

Epiphany · Jun 19, 2011

I currently have a canon power shot SD 780. I have always loved taking photos and I have wanted to up grade to a DSLR for sometime. It has been intimidating for me to make a decision on what to get not knowing all the technical terms and features of these cameras. I want to be able to submerge myself more into photography as a hobby. My favorite subjects to photograph are mostly nature and my dogs or anything that catches my eye as interesting. I would love to do special occasion photos for my friends and family as well.

I am basically looking for a good starter to intermediate DSLR camera. I want something with more versatility than a p&s and not to basic of a DSLR. If I am going to be spending a good chunk of change, I want something that will keep me busy for a while with out getting bored with it's functionality. I would be willing to go over $1,000 for a good camera.

I thought that I wanted an Olympus of some kind. When I bought my Canon, I was told that Olympus is not at the top of it's game like it was back in the day and that Canon has moved their way to the top. I don't know if this is just in regards of p&s or overall.

Suggestions of any kind would be greatly appreciated!!

Thanks!

johnh2005 · Jun 19, 2011

You will have a few people chime in here about Canon vs Nikon. I would suggest going to the nearest real camera store (not Walmart or Best Buy) and talk with the people there. Pick up a few Nikon's and a few Canon's. See what feels good in your hand. See how the balance feels. Play with the menu's. Ask the sales person to show you how to change the ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture. See how easy they can do it. See how easy you can follow them and do it yourself. When choosing between Nikon and Canon it is like choosing between a Lamborghini and a Ferrari. It just depends on what you feel about the camera yourself.

My suggestion would be to find what camera feels best. Then choose one in the $600 to $900 range and find a lens or two that fits in your budget. Others here will be able to make a real suggestion on lenses based on your photographic preferences. The kit lens will be fine for your dogs and such and for landscapes and such others will be able to suggest a good lens.

subscuck · Jun 19, 2011

At this point, don't confuse the issue with lenses. Both Canon and Nikon supply very decent kit lenses with their cameras that are more than adequate to learn with. In fact, once you have a grasp of the fundamentals (both camera and photography), you can get more than acceptable pics from a kit lens. In your price range, the biggest difference between Canon and Nikon will be lenses auto focusing. The entry level Nikon's don't have built in focus motors, and some of their older lens designs don't either, so they won't AF on those bodies. They will manual focus, tho. Every Canon lens currently manufactured will AF on any Rebel body.

If you have money left, or even if you don't, I strongly suggest you sink a little into a book or two. "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson, or Scott Kelby's three volume set "The Digital Photography Book" would be good places to start. Photography with an SLR will only be as good as your knowledge of the photographic process and your camera. The learning curve is steep, but not insurmountable.

Epiphany · Jun 19, 2011

Thanks for the suggestions! What mega pixel range should I look for? Is there a certain point where it becomes a wash and you don't see a difference?

KenC · Jun 19, 2011

No difference above about 10, unless you want to make posters to hang on the side of a bus. Since every DSLR at this point has at least this much, most of them more, it's just not an issue.

PJL · Jun 20, 2011

KenC said:
No difference above about 10, unless you want to make posters to hang on the side of a bus. Since every DSLR at this point has at least this much, most of them more, it's just not an issue.

I agree. Companies are trying to out-MP each other because it's a selling point, but not a very relevant one for most people. Most hobby-level users won't be using the quality of lenses (read: "very expensive") that you would need to truly take advantage of very high MP count; the only place where high MPs is truly beneficial is if you're doing tight cropping or doing huge prints, but even then, if you don't have really sharp glass and good technique, you'll still get less-than-stellar results.

Epiphany said:
I am basically looking for a good starter to intermediate DSLR camera. I want something with more versatility than a p&s and not to basic of a DSLR. If I am going to be spending a good chunk of change, I want something that will keep me busy for a while with out getting bored with it's functionality. I would be willing to go over $1,000 for a good camera.

I'm going to sound like a bit of a dick here, but you shouldn't rely on your camera's functions to not be bored with photography. In that case, most higher level DSLRs are quite boring -- my 40D, for example, has a very straight-forward menu system that assumes that the operator knows what they're doing. It's a camera, not an iPhone.

Personally, I'm a fan of used equipment. You'll get a better camera for your money (from a pure functionality standpoint) than you're going to get from a brand new camera in the same price range. I got a Canon 40D as my first DSLR (after years of shooting film SLRs) because I, too, didn't want to start out with something entry-level. For me, though, it was a question of ergonomics and functionality -- more expensive SLRs are bigger, heavier, and feel better in my hand and they have more intuitive controls. They get out of your way a whole lot better than entry-level cameras. I got the body for under $500 in "excellent" condition and couldn't be happier with it.

Epiphany · Jun 20, 2011

So this may be the novice in me showing but I have been looking at the Cannon EOS 50D and EOS 60D and the Nikon D3100 and D5100. Are they or are they not all very similar? Is there something important that distinguishes them from one another that I am missing? I would like to have it narrowed down to one Cannon and one Nikon before I go into a store and look at them closer. I am leaning toward the Cannon EOS 50D and the Nikon D5100. Any thoughts on either?

PJL-I will take a closer look at the 40D. Thanks! Good to hear you are happy with your used 40D. I was thinking about getting a refurbished camera as well.

Kerbouchard · Jun 20, 2011

The D3100 and D5100 are Nikon's equivalent of about two steps below the Canon 50D or 60D. A closer Nikon comparison would be the D90, D7000, or D300s. If you are between a 50D/60D or a D3100/D5100, I would have to recommend the Canon. And that hurts to do, since I am a Nikon shooter. I just don't feel like there is anything redeeming in the D3100/D5100 line from Nikon except for soccer moms who want to have a bigger camera than their friend's P&S.

PJL · Jun 21, 2011

Kerbouchard said:
The D3100 and D5100 are Nikon's equivalent of about two steps below the Canon 50D or 60D. A closer Nikon comparison would be the D90, D7000, or D300s. If you are between a 50D/60D or a D3100/D5100, I would have to recommend the Canon. And that hurts to do, since I am a Nikon shooter. I just don't feel like there is anything redeeming in the D3100/D5100 line from Nikon except for soccer moms who want to have a bigger camera than their friend's P&S.

I agree with this whole-heartedly.

As for the 40D, it's a great camera, although some may shy away because the MP rating isn't as high as current models. Given your budget, you could spend $500 or less on the body and then have $500 left over to spend on glass, which is really the most important part of any SLR system. If you can swing the 50D (and still be able to afford a decent lens or two), though, go with the 50D.

Just to add to the confusion, you should also consider the Nikon D90, which is a great camera. Honestly, the D90 was probably the benchmark for the above-entry-level camera market a couple years ago.