Need New Camera Advice

Hobbes · Sep 11, 2009

Have you ever used a DSLR before? I personally believe the EOS 5D mk2 is waaay too much for someone who has never used a dslr before. I started with a eos 40D and now, a year later, I am still learning some of the features my camera offers and trying to save for a better lens instead of a better body. Well unless you are filthy rich and money doesn't matter much you really should consider a cheaper camera. After have been using 40D I wouldn't recommend you those smaller bodies like the Rebel series and Nikon D40/60/3000 course there are just too much you don't get with those. I think you should look at Canon eos 40D/50D and Nikon D90/D300 along with one or two decent lenses like EF 24-70 f/2.8L and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS. If you really want a camera that gives extremely good high ISO performance then you should take a look at Nikon D700 or even D3.

EDIT: as for the SX 1 IS, I wouldn't recommend those point and shoot cameras because their higher ISO performance are just awful...
just look at those sample pictures: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408premiumgroup/page9.asp

Montana · Sep 11, 2009

But the 5DmkII is no more difficult to use than a 40D. And has way....way better high ISO performance. Is there really such a thing as too much camera? I think not. If budget allows, buy the absolute best you can. It is actually cheaper in the long run. The only thing I see benificial to the OP about crop body cameras is the extra "reach". But the crop-ability of the 5DII files are very impressive. I like the fact that I can shoot portrait....decide I like a landscape crop better and still make a usable print.....that is some serious cropping.

Village Idiot · Sep 12, 2009

Hobbes said:
Have you ever used a DSLR before? I personally believe the EOS 5D mk2 is waaay too much for someone who has never used a dslr before. I started with a eos 40D and now, a year later, I am still learning some of the features my camera offers and trying to save for a better lens instead of a better body. Well unless you are filthy rich and money doesn't matter much you really should consider a cheaper camera. After have been using 40D I wouldn't recommend you those smaller bodies like the Rebel series and Nikon D40/60/3000 course there are just too much you don't get with those. I think you should look at Canon eos 40D/50D and Nikon D90/D300 along with one or two decent lenses like EF 24-70 f/2.8L and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS. If you really want a camera that gives extremely good high ISO performance then you should take a look at Nikon D700 or even D3.

EDIT: as for the SX 1 IS, I wouldn't recommend those point and shoot cameras because their higher ISO performance are just awful...
just look at those sample pictures: Premium Camera Group Test (Q4 2008) Review: 9. Studio comparison: Digital Photography Review

Actually, all joking aside, the 5D's are pretty straight forward disregarding the video feature.

Montana said:
But the 5DmkII is no more difficult to use than a 40D. And has way....way better high ISO performance. Is there really such a thing as too much camera? I think not. If budget allows, buy the absolute best you can. It is actually cheaper in the long run. The only thing I see benificial to the OP about crop body cameras is the extra "reach". But the crop-ability of the 5DII files are very impressive. I like the fact that I can shoot portrait....decide I like a landscape crop better and still make a usable print.....that is some serious cropping.

I've done that several times. 24 MP does serve a purpose to certain people.

Ayanla · Sep 22, 2009

Thank you all again for the discussion and advice. I've revisited this thread multiple times over the last week or so while thinking about my options and what I am really looking for.

After continuing research, I have decided to go with a DSLR rather than a bridge P&S like the Canon SX1.

I've been reading the reviews, as well as the complaints, about the SX1. Primary complaints were about picture quality (particularly indoors and/or when shooting a moving target), and difficulty of menu navigation and button placement (hitting buttons by accident, for instance). There were other complaints regarding reliability of the camera itself and it's battery hungry nature (my current P&S suffers from this, though, so I already have a stockpile of rechargable NIMh batteries).

Beyond the complaints, which I admit give me pause on a $500 camera, there's the potential for upgrade and diversity. A P&S does what it does. There's no option for lenses, filters, or anything of that nature. There are benefits to that, namely that I don't have to learn anything about lenses

lol

but after much internal debate I think I would really like the options that come with a DSLR, even an entry level one. I'm willing to put in some time reading about terminology and the basics of what affects what so I at least understand what the lense numbers mean.

So what are your recommendations for an entry-level DSLR and the "basic" lense(s) you would recommend as far as having some versatility in shooting? So far in this thread it looks like the Nikon D90, the Canon ES 40D or 50D and the Canon 5D MKII (wow, that one's a bank-buster, isn't it?) were all mentioned. I'm making a list of recommendations I've gotten and then researching them myself before making a decision. This whole thing has been an eye opener as I really had no concept that there was such equipment diversity. I know it makes me sound rather ignorant, but I really thought quality photos were more of a personal skill thing than an equipment thing, but now I'm seeing that equipment plays a much bigger role than I thought (though personal skill is still obviously a major part).

Again, thanks so much for all of the input. I really appreciate it.

PhotoXopher · Sep 22, 2009

If you want to buy once:

D90 or D300s
Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Nikon 24-70 f/2.8
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8

Of course there are less expensive alternatives as far as lenses go such as a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8, Nikon 50mm f/1.8D and Nikon 35mm f/1.8.

I'd recommend getting a Nikon D90 kit with either the 18-105 or 18-200 lens and see what range you use most often. This way you'll have a nice walk around lens no matter what and you'll also be able to narrow down what range you need faster glass in.

Ayanla · Oct 3, 2009

So I've decided on the Nikon D90 with one or two kit lenses. I figure that will give me a good base on which to build if I want/need to. I have read up on lenses enough to have a basic understanding, but I still get a bit overwhelmed trying to compare the lenses.

The current kit I'm looking at includes the following two lenses:

Nikon 18-105mm AF-S DX f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikkor Lens
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G AF Zoom Lens

Would these two lenses give me a good range of shooting ability or should I continue looking? Aren't the f-stops rather high? My goal in buying the kit is to get a feel for where I need to put the real money and allow the kit lens(es) to handle the rest, but I don't want to buy a kit with lenses that are going to be entirely useless to me.

My alternative is a kit with the below lens instead of the 70-300 lens. It still includes the same 18-105mm lens.

Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom Lens

Or of course I could just buy the kit with the 18-105 lens alone. I would like a lens, though, for indoor shots of my family/the dogs etc. Would a good prime lens be my best option there? I wouldn't need a massive zoom. It would be just for indoor candid photos indoors.

What do you all think?