DSLR Camera

[Evan]

Hey there, I'm looking for a DSLR camera. I need it to take pictures at events and I realized that a standard camera won't cut it. The reason is because I want the pictures to have that "glossy" look. You may know what I am talking about. I think I need something from Nikon (http://flickr.com/cameras/nikon/) since I hear they are really reliable. I need to take pictures at events which would be in the day and night and would need a good zoom (I assume I will need to get a lens seperately) to take pictures at stages for performers. A good flash would be great as well. I'm assuming that something like what I want to do would mean I might need extra batteries and memory cards in case I am at events for a long period of time. Also, taking pictures in rapid succession would be ideal, since you need to be prepared for anything that might happen to get it on film. Also, no delay from pressing the button would be wonderful - I really dislike my current Sony camera for taking SO long after I press the button for the picture to be taken, the same goes for taking one picture after the other. I have a Kodak which seems to take pictures instantaneously so It seems like something very possible. Finally, something with a not-so-steep learning curve would be nice - I am really just interested in pointing and shooting, not fiddling with settings, but I assume a DSLR might mean that won't be the case so much. Thanks!

[alFR]

Well, you're partly right - you can use a DSLR as a point-and-shoot, but you won't be getting the most out of it that way and might be better saving some cash and going for a high-end compact digicam.

If you want a DSLR and have no existing lens stock then you can go with any brand - check out both Canon and Nikon in person if you can, some people prefer the ergonomics of one brand over the other. To take event pictures at night as you describe you'll probably need an (expensive) wide-aperture zoom lens, but either manufacturer can give you that. DSLRs have very little shutter delay, so no worries there. You can get spare batteries, cards etc. for any brand so again no worries.

Check out:

DPReview (http://www.dpreview.com/)
Steve's digicams (http://www.steves-digicams.com/)
Digital camera resource page (http://www.dcresource.com/)

for some reviews.

[Martin C]

I think people give you some options if you would tell us if you are under a budget or not.

[semicharmed]

The reason is because I want the pictures to have that "glossy" look. You may know what I am talking about. I think I need something from Nikon (http://flickr.com/cameras/nikon/) since I hear they are really reliable.

Glossy look? Can you show examples? A lot can be done with post-processing, etc even if the shots are originally taken with compact point + shoots.

[Cameront9]

When you buy a dSLR, you are NOT buying a camera. You are buying a SYSTEM. Check out the differences between Canon and Nikon's lenses and see which ones you think suit your shooting style better. Camera bodies will come and go, but the Glass is the real investment.

Personally, I love the Canon stuff. You can't go wrong with an Xti or a 30D. If you go Nikon, DON'T get the entry level camera (The D40, I think...). It has been crippled and will only Autofocus with a few newer Nikon autofocus lenses.

That said, both companies offer good products. just go to the store and try it out. Oh, and don't skimp on the glass. You may think the 5 or 6 hundred you spend on the lens alone is nuts, but it will be worth it to get nice fast glass that takes incredibly sharp photos.

[Abstract]

Actually, I think the D40 is a decent camera. There are some lenses that won't work on it, but there are a LOT of consumer level lenses that will, because these lenses are the ones that made the shift to SWM first. The only thing I wish is for the 50 mm f/1.8 to get SWM.

The Nikon D80 is pretty much the class leader for cameras under $1000 USD.

If you get a Canon, don't bother with the Digital Rebel XTi. Feels like a piece of junk. Every camera from every other manufacturer feels better built. The small size is a preference thing, but the small size is the biggest complaint about this camera as well. The Canon 30D is a great size, although the ergonomics may or may not feel right for you.

A Pentax K100D is nice, and the K10D is even nicer. Best bang for your buck, I say.

[Lord Blackadder]

I have a Nikon Coolpix 4300 point-and-shoot that is a few years old. It takes pretty good pictures, but having used DSLRs in archaeology fieldwork I find that I'd like to have a camera with a wide-angle lens for taking pictures of big things up close, and less delay between taking one pic and being ready to do the next.

I was thinking of getting a Pentax K100D, but Nikon emailed me an advert for the D40X, and it looks attractive. I'm not a professional by any stretch, but I take pictures often enough I think I'm ready to graduate to a DSLR...

But I know little about lenses right now, so I've got some reading to do. In the field I used a 35mm film camera (either a Canon F1 or a Canon EOS) with 50mm and 28mm lenses. The digital was an old Canon EOS with some sort of zoom lens but I can't remember the focal length...it's all so confusing! ;)

[Unspeaked]

I was thinking of getting a Pentax K100D, but Nikon emailed me an advert for the D40X, and it looks attractive. I'm not a professional by any stretch, but I take pictures often enough I think I'm ready to graduate to a DSLR...

I'm in the same boat, sort of, but in the end, I think the fact that the Pentax works with the entire Pentax line of lenses while the Nikon only works with a select few pushes things in the K100D's favor.

Plus, the buit-in anti-shake will probably help make up for the 6MP vs 10MP difference...

[MacAnkka]

I'm in the same boat, sort of, but in the end, I think the fact that the Pentax works with the entire Pentax line of lenses while the Nikon only works with a select few pushes things in the K100D's favor.

Plus, the buit-in anti-shake will probably help make up for the 6MP vs 10MP difference...
The Nikon line is quite a lot bigger than Pentax's, though. (Even if you don't count the Nikon lenses that don't work with D40, I think)

[j5uh]

i'm sorry but i love by 350d (XT)
kit lens isn't so bad... very under rated by noobs.
If you know how to shoot, you can shoot with any lens.

reason why i chose the 350d is the price. I got mine of amazon.com for 530 with kit lens and body. its light and portable.

if you want, i'd advise you to buy the 350d with just the body for around 450. and buy yourself a 50mm f/1.8 lens from b&h. it's only $80 bucks for a freaking awesome prime lens. Prime means no zoom... fyi.

if you want, you can check out my photos on my flickr www.flickr.com/photos/j5uh

btw if your buying a dslr, you better have some time to sit and learn how to use it. if not, your wasting your time and energy lugging around a bigger camera.

secondly, learn to edit photos. that means shooting in RAW rather than jpg.

there's lots to learn. you have to be passionate and have the time. anything less, your wasting your time and money. :D

[Veritas&Equitas]

Based on your post, I'd say you probably don't have much experience at all with dSLR. Also, instead of focusing on the body, make your decision based on the lens. I see way too many people worried about what body to get, when in reality, the lens system is what you are buying into. For instance, even if you bought a D40 body for $450, a decent lens could cost you double that. (i.e. 18-200mm VR). If you buy Canon, you can only use those specific lenses, same with Nikon. In the long run, you'll be spending much more money on your lenses than your body, most likely.

That being said, what you are looking to do is going to cost you. A decent body, with a couple decent lenses, coupled with a speed light that you said you want will run you well over $1,000. That's not even including the editing software that you will probably need (unless you already have Photoshop). For instance, a D40 runs you $450ish, say a 18-55mm kit lens is another $150, a cheap 50mm/1.8 prime is around $120, and a decent zoom lens will run you at least another few hundred if you are working in low lighting like you say at shooting a stage of performers, probably more. Throw in some more for a decent memory card, carrying case, maybe tripod/monopod, you'll be well over $1,000 after all is said and done, probably closer to $1,400-1,500, and that's not even buying top stuff, just "budget" equipment (i.e. not D200, D2x, 70-300mm VR, etc.) Make sure it's what you want to do, and it's worth the investment of not only money, but a good deal of time learning all the basics of shooting (ISO, shutter speed, aperture, etc.).

[Evan]

Wow. Didn't expect such a reply - I guess I should say some more stuff now.

The "gloss" thing I was talking about may be pretty much subjective, but this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/schaffner/375747352/). I think it could be post processing or something.

So let me give you a bit more story - I'm going to be doing a website where pictures at events/parties would be a big part of it. So I've stated that I would want a zoom to get a good view of performers on stage from a distance in case I can only shoot at a less than prime (far) spot. What I'm doing is going to be pretty new here, the only "competition" in this field basically tells people to go with whatever camera they have, focus on having a certain number of Megapixels on the camera and that's all. So, I want to do it right, I want to have the pictures with that "gloss". So it'll be pictures of people at parties, posing, etc. It would be mostly but not always at night. Here's something else, I'm in the Caribbean and doing this would mean ordering from the internet and working just on the opinions of nice people like you :) With this said, I don't think I NEED a professional camera, and I would hope I can get away with spending around $500 US. That probably wouldn't be a reality but I would at least like to get the information and know how much I would need to. So I've learned that I need to focus on the lense(s) but I don't know much about this. I've had the D40/80 suggested before but again, getting people's suggestions is what I need since I can't use these things before I buy. I'm no photographer, never used a DSLR, but I am a fast learner, having a camera that doesn't take much to operate would be ideal too!

[carbonmotion]

http://flickr.com/photos/carbonmotion/sets/72157600036045007/

All taken with a measily point and shoot by me....
i dont think you need a dslr to get a good picture

[Roy Hobbs]

Wow. Didn't expect such a reply - I guess I should say some more stuff now.

The "gloss" thing I was talking about may be pretty much subjective, but this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/schaffner/375747352/). I think it could be post processing or something.

So let me give you a bit more story - I'm going to be doing a website where pictures at events/parties would be a big part of it. So I've stated that I would want a zoom to get a good view of performers on stage from a distance in case I can only shoot at a less than prime (far) spot. What I'm doing is going to be pretty new here, the only "competition" in this field basically tells people to go with whatever camera they have, focus on having a certain number of Megapixels on the camera and that's all. So, I want to do it right, I want to have the pictures with that "gloss". So it'll be pictures of people at parties, posing, etc. It would be mostly but not always at night. Here's something else, I'm in the Caribbean and doing this would mean ordering from the internet and working just on the opinions of nice people like you :) With this said, I don't think I NEED a professional camera, and I would hope I can get away with spending around $500 US. That probably wouldn't be a reality but I would at least like to get the information and know how much I would need to. So I've learned that I need to focus on the lense(s) but I don't know much about this. I've had the D40/80 suggested before but again, getting people's suggestions is what I need since I can't use these things before I buy. I'm no photographer, never used a DSLR, but I am a fast learner, having a camera that doesn't take much to operate would be ideal too!

I think the "gloss" you are talking about is from a well taken picture not necessarily form a DSLR. A good photographger can get great pics from a disposable camera.

[Unspeaked]

I think the "gloss" you are talking about is from a well taken picture not necessarily form a DSLR. A good photographger can get great pics from a disposable camera.

Agreed.

That example he gave looks like something any modest Point and Shoot could accomplish.

I think he'd be better of getting a Canon Powershot or something of that nature, with a decent zoom (since that seems to be a must-have for him) and he can get away with spending under $400 and have a pretty nice, high resolution camera.

[Lovesong]

The "gloss" you're referring to is simply a sharp image that can be obtained without the use of an SLR. The whole idea behind the interchangeable lenses is that you can use a certain lens for a certain situation (i.e. a macro lens for all those bugs in the backyard, a fast prime for low light, etc.). There are some advantages over the P&S cameras, including having complete manual control over your images, selecting glass that will be good for some situations, and less noise at higher ISOs.
That being said, a dSLR is more than the "camera." As others have said, you're buying a system of lenses. Recently I bought a $2500 Canon 5D. I fully expect that within 5-10 years that camera will be gone, replaced by something else. What will stay are the lenses that I have bought for the Canon mount (which added up to more than the camera body itself). For what you're looking to do (telephoto stuff, low light), you are going to need something like a 70-200 f/2.8 lens (running at about $1200, more for the Nikon), and some fast long primes (which are out of most our budgets).
My advice to you is to look into the so-called super-zooms. They are not SLR cameras, but deliver many of the same manual controls, and image quality is often on par with some of the budget SLRs. Try the Lumix FZ-50, or one of the Fuji S series. Canon also has the S3 IS, which is nice camera as well. Given your lack of experience in the field, and your low budget, this would make more sense, and give you instant gratification, over the SLRs, which though outstanding, are more expensive than they appear.

[Cameront9]

Been thinking about your predicament.

You say you want a good zoom and most of the pics will be at night. This means you will have to use "fast" glass to get good results, as you're probably not going to be able to use a flash....You're looking at some expensive lenses in this case...."Fast" zooms are some of the most expensive lenses there are.

Also, you need to realize that on an SLR, you're not going to have 10x zooms, etc. you're going to have lenses which zoom like 3-4x at the most. Depending on how far away you are, you're going to need probably a zoom lens of about 100mm-400mm, I would think...

You might check some camera specific forums to get a better answer. www.steves-digicams.com is a good site that I trust. I'm a Canon guy, and the Canon forums at http://photography-on-the.net/forum/ are really great. They can help you look towards where you want to go... Sorry, don't know of any Nikon forums, might google "Nikonians," I think I've heard that name before....

[Evan]

The "gloss" you're referring to is simply a sharp image that can be obtained without the use of an SLR. The whole idea behind the interchangeable lenses is that you can use a certain lens for a certain situation (i.e. a macro lens for all those bugs in the backyard, a fast prime for low light, etc.). There are some advantages over the P&S cameras, including having complete manual control over your images, selecting glass that will be good for some situations, and less noise at higher ISOs.
That being said, a dSLR is more than the "camera." As others have said, you're buying a system of lenses. Recently I bought a $2500 Canon 5D. I fully expect that within 5-10 years that camera will be gone, replaced by something else. What will stay are the lenses that I have bought for the Canon mount (which added up to more than the camera body itself). For what you're looking to do (telephoto stuff, low light), you are going to need something like a 70-200 f/2.8 lens (running at about $1200, more for the Nikon), and some fast long primes (which are out of most our budgets).
My advice to you is to look into the so-called super-zooms. They are not SLR cameras, but deliver many of the same manual controls, and image quality is often on par with some of the budget SLRs. Try the Lumix FZ-50, or one of the Fuji S series. Canon also has the S3 IS, which is nice camera as well. Given your lack of experience in the field, and your low budget, this would make more sense, and give you instant gratification, over the SLRs, which though outstanding, are more expensive than they appear.

Seems like I'll have a ton of research to do still. But you're with the night shots, they'll most likely be outdoors to boot. I see no reason I can't use a flash but I'm thinking using a flash may be a bad idea. I guess this is irrelevant, I can easily turn flash on or off. I still think but am not certain that a DSLR is what I should get in case I can manage to get images in magazine, or if people want prints, though alternately I am sure you can get good prints from a point and shoot. I'd have multiple people at events and some would use standard P&S cameras, but I at least want one "good" camera for performers, etc. But I'm not going to get a good Zoom with a DSLR? That will suck but some zoom is better than none. Also, I may not really need a zoom in reality but I would like to have it just in case.

Answer me this, would there be packages with different lenses for cameras or you'd have to get them separately? And a Macro Lens is for smaller things, but could I not use it to just take pictures like a P&S? The thing is I don't want to be having to change lenses during an event to have it drop, etc. So one lens would be ok. I'm just really inquisitive because I don't want to spend more than I need to but if I have to put out the money I will try. I have a Sony, I don't think these pictures have the same "kick" as a DSLR has, check here (http://flickr.com/photos/evansalina/222470669/) and here (http://flickr.com/photos/evansalina/222470667/). Thanks a lot for the help, I really appreciate it, and I would love any more suggestions you have. The Digital Rebel is actually looking like it might be OK but anything else, do let me know. I'm going to look into the Lumix cam in the meantime.

[j5uh]

i dont think i've ever seen packages of different cameras and lenses...

but either way,... ur gonna have to change out ur lens for different situations. unless u just don't care how your images look. Lens aren't cheap either.

i see that your wanting a lens with good zoom and good night time capabilities. i'd recommend the canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L glass. its about 1600-$1700. it's one of the best for indoor/lowlight settings.

just be ready to shell out some money if ur gonna go dslr. it's not a cheap hobby.

[Jht]

Instead of an dslr have you thought about a prosumer/bridge camera instead, they tend to offer big zooms (10-18x optical), many manual settings common to dslr, high iso, shutter etc but all in a camera with a fixed lens, there also quite a bit cheaper and easier to maintain (ie: no dust in lens etc), bacially, as the name suggests they bridge the gap between an slr and a compact would be good for you if you feel your going to overwhelmed by an slr or the technology will be wasted on you, have a look at the fuji s range:

http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-Finepix-Digital-Wide-Angle-Optical/dp/B000GFWFZ2/ref=sr_1_12/002-5916979-7274425?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1176331876&sr=1-12

[Evan]

Interesting, but the Rebel (http://flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_digital_rebel_xt/) is a bit more so maybe I should just go with that?

[Roy Hobbs]

Seems like I'll have a ton of research to do still. But you're with the night shots, they'll most likely be outdoors to boot. I see no reason I can't use a flash but I'm thinking using a flash may be a bad idea. I guess this is irrelevant, I can easily turn flash on or off. I still think but am not certain that a DSLR is what I should get in case I can manage to get images in magazine, or if people want prints, though alternately I am sure you can get good prints from a point and shoot. I'd have multiple people at events and some would use standard P&S cameras, but I at least want one "good" camera for performers, etc. But I'm not going to get a good Zoom with a DSLR? That will suck but some zoom is better than none. Also, I may not really need a zoom in reality but I would like to have it just in case.

Answer me this, would there be packages with different lenses for cameras or you'd have to get them separately? And a Macro Lens is for smaller things, but could I not use it to just take pictures like a P&S? The thing is I don't want to be having to change lenses during an event to have it drop, etc. So one lens would be ok. I'm just really inquisitive because I don't want to spend more than I need to but if I have to put out the money I will try. I have a Sony, I don't think these pictures have the same "kick" as a DSLR has, check here (http://flickr.com/photos/evansalina/222470669/) and here (http://flickr.com/photos/evansalina/222470667/). Thanks a lot for the help, I really appreciate it, and I would love any more suggestions you have. The Digital Rebel is actually looking like it might be OK but anything else, do let me know. I'm going to look into the Lumix cam in the meantime.

Again these pictures would not have neccessarily been better with a DSLR or any other camera. The "kick" you are referring to is simply a good photograpgher taking good pictures a camera can not do this for you.

[Evan]

So what do you suggest? Walking around with a light or something? When you say "good" photographer you're talking about knowing what ISO or something to use? I am liking what I see from the Rebel, this picture (http://flickr.com/photos/expeditions/455341251/) is really nice. So is this one (http://flickr.com/photos/expeditions/455327522/). Would what I described above in terms of requirements for lenses be adequate for sports? (i.e. needing a good zoom) or is there another lens I would need specifically?

[JNB]

If you end up going with a point 'n' shoot, one thing to be careful of is the advertised zoom factor. There's optical zoom, and digital zoom.

Optical is "real" zoom, where the physical optics are adjusted to achieve the zoom.

Digital zoom is simple "blowing up" the digital image to make it appear closer. It results in a much grainer picture.

Most P&S cameras use a combination of this. The will be advertised with something like "30X Effective Zoom!" That's likely a 3X Optical and 10X Digital. Bottom line, the higher optical zoom number, the better. I never used the digital portion on my old Canon A40 at all.

[bep207]

those example pictures you are referencing have been worked on in some sort of photo editing program, be it photoshop or something like that.
theoretically any photo can come out like this after some post-processing.

its what comes out of the camera RAW that is important.
which is where NIkon comes in.
D80 without a doubt.

Unless you have extremely tiny hands and have an affinity for toy-like electronics steer clear from Canon unless you have the money to buy their higher models.

You cannot get a better deal than the D80.

[Evan]

those example pictures you are referencing have been worked on in some sort of photo editing program, be it photoshop or something like that.
theoretically any photo can come out like this after some post-processing.

its what comes out of the camera RAW that is important.
which is where NIkon comes in.
D80 without a doubt.

Unless you have extremely tiny hands and have an affinity for toy-like electronics steer clear from Canon unless you have the money to buy their higher models.

You cannot get a better deal than the D80.

Interesting position - why do you say that? Have you read my needs above? So a synopsis - good OPTICAL zoom? What about price? Flickr doesn't state any range. How about shooting in low light, night time? What about time between taking multiple shots? What about for someone new to DSLRs? It's good to hear people who feel strongly about a camera and can shed light on other cameras that people don't talk about, such as Canon and small buttons etc. (thought that may not be a problem for me). Hope you or someone else can talk to me about the D80.



If you end up going with a point 'n' shoot, one thing to be careful of is the advertised zoom factor. There's optical zoom, and digital zoom.

Optical is "real" zoom, where the physical optics are adjusted to achieve the zoom.

Digital zoom is simple "blowing up" the digital image to make it appear closer. It results in a much grainer picture.

Most P&S cameras use a combination of this. The will be advertised with something like "30X Effective Zoom!" That's likely a 3X Optical and 10X Digital. Bottom line, the higher optical zoom number, the better. I never used the digital portion on my old Canon A40 at all.

Yes, I'm aware that digital zoom is evil! But it's always good to point out, hence the reason I mentioned the need for lenses. But do stand-alone lenses do digital as well or optical only? Disabling digital would be helpful, heh.

[SalukiWildcat]

I am also a fan of the Canon Digital Rebel XT. The Canon line of lenses is superb, and the ergonomics of the camera fit my hand just fine.

I would encourage you to go to a camera store with a good stock of bodies from different manufacturers and see what you like. Look at the lenses - these, not your camera body, will determine how your shots turn out.

Make sure, above all else, that you don't let some salesman talk you into something ridiculous, like the Canon 5D. I am sure that for your purposes, you won't need anything past 8 megapixels (Rebel XT, Nikon D70, Canon 20D).

Good luck with your search!

[Veritas&Equitas]

Sure, the Canon lineup of L lenses are unreal, but they are also unreal in price, usually around $1,400-1,500, and that's not even including the camera or anything else, just the lens.

Bottom line, you are not going to get the kind of results you want with a P&S camera. It's just not going to happen. Shooting performers on a stage, low light, outside = need a big time, pricey, f/2.8 aperture or smaller lens. You might be able to get decent results if you are right near or under the stage with a flash using a P&S, but besides that, you won't get ANY photos that look even close to professional, instead more like a mom shooting her kids at the school play.

[JAT]

If you like truly sharp pics, there is another DSLR that is going to beat any Canon or Nikon. Fits in with the Mac user type, too. (small market share, better pics, etc)

Sigma SD14.

The Sigmas have given the sharpest, most realistic pics since they first came out several years ago. They are almost 3D in nature, just like film. And the SD14 is finally a better camera on general features like the AF. I love the simplicity of the controls, like Nikon. If I could afford it right now, I'd upgrade my SD10 to the 14.

[j5uh]

if you want sports photos... hands down canon 70-200mm f/4 L glass is the bomb! if you have the money, shell out for the IS version. but for low lighting you have to get something less than f/4.

[Veritas&Equitas]

Sigma SD14.

Come on now JAT, of course the Sigma SD14 is decent, but the OP said he'd have trouble spending over $500 for his setup, the SD14 BODY alone is $1,600! In my book, a D200 with a killer lens can go much further for the money than the SD14. Get a D200 AND the 18-200VR lens and you still come out under the price of just the SD14 body.

Anyways, bottom line is that it's still way out of his price range. But if you were going to spend that kind of dough ($1,500-1,600ish for a body + lens), I'd probably start with the D200 + 18-200VR.

[Abstract]

I think the advice given right now is getting a bit messy, and some of it seems unusable for Evan. :o

I'm sorry, but you're hoping to take outdoor photos at night without a flash, there's no way to do this. People can talk about the 50 mm f/1.8 all they want, or the 70-200 mm f/2.8, but you're going to need to spend like $5000 on lenses if you want to achieve results in your situation.

You'll save $4700 by buying a flash and a diffuser. :p The flash and diffuser will probably cost you a few hundred dollars. The diffuser makes sure that the people you take photos of don't look like a spotlight was shone at them when the photo was taken (ie: they're very bright, and everything behind them is dark). It'll give it a more natural look than your point & shoot flash.

I'd get the Nikon D40 because it's so great in low light, and because it is definitely a beginners camera that also happens to be very capable.

If you're going to use flash to shoot people from fairly close range, the kit lens will honestly do fine. It doesn't let in a lot of light when you zoom in completely (the "aperture" is smaller at 55 mm), but since you're using a flash, it'll be fine.

Money needs to be spent to get a lens that can photograph people from far away. A point and shoot with a huge zoom won't do it because it still won't let in enough light. The 18-135 mm, 18-200 mm, and even the 70-200 mm f/4 are also too slow. The 70-200 mm f/2.8 lenses may even be too slow. Since you don't plan on spending much money, no zoom will do the job from far away. I shoot events, and if the stage lighting you get is the same as what I have experienced, you're going to need a Nikon 105 mm f/2 DC. The other choice is the Nikon 200 mm f/2, which costs you thousands upon thousands of dollars. Get a used 105 mm f/2 DC lens. It's not a cheap lens, but it's the best lens for what you'll do. You can't zoom at all using that lens, though. However, zoom lenses will be very slow for you.

So get:

Nikon D40 + 18-55 mm kit lens = $679
- Nikon SB600 flash = $259
- Stofen Omnibounce = $30
- used Nikon 105 mm DC lens OR used Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8 = no idea. If you're lucky, you can get one used. Try Nikon Cafe or some other Nikon site with a used gear marketplace.


Prices are from http://www.thecamerastore.com/ProductsList.aspx

[Veritas&Equitas]

- used Nikon 105 mm DC lens OR used Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8 = no idea. You'll be lucky to get

I agree with pretty much everything Abstract said. However, the 105 mm DC will run you about $800, or the 80-200mm will run you about $850.

Point being, the entire setup w/lens, flash, diffuser, and zoom lens will run you at least $1,700 minimum for what you want to do. You really should think if it's something you want to invest in, considering you said you didn't want to spend over $500 total.

[CTYankee]

Here is what you need:
Canon 30D (1500) or 1DmkII ($3500)
50mm 1.8 $80
85 1.8 $350
135 2.0 $950
70-200 2.8 ($1200) or the IS version ($1700)
580EX flash ($400)
and of course extra batteries and CF cards for another $300 or so

Yup, not cheap. Night event photography requires some good gear to be donw well and done right. Realizing you can't affor this kind of gear a few options and thoughts.

You want to buy a camera with good high ISO performance. This may rule out Nikon. The Canon 1600 and even 3200 speeds will let you keep shooting when the light gets low. The photos will still look good and noise removal software will make them look great. Nikon just cannot compare to Canon at these high ISO's. While the Rebel may feel like a toy, it can be used very effectively in low light. The more ergonomic Nikon may feel better, but thats all it will do better when the lights go down. I've seen many Nikon shooters pack up and leave night games when the sun goes down and the Canon guys keep on shooting. Right now the difference in lenses is not much between Nikon and Canon. The difference in bodies is night and day (no pun intended). Nikon just can't compete with Canon's high ISO and is STILL only selling cropped camera bodies. Their R&D is moving at a snail's pace. Not where I'd want to invest my money. Guess what I use?

If budget really is a concern, then look at Fuji's FZ series. Good high ISO, little shutter lag, and good price. Not much zoom, but hey...thats what your feet are for.

Another consideration...if you have a SLR and you don't have a contract or agreement with the venue and performers you can find yourself being asked to leave. You are not allowed to photograph performers for commercial purposes without their consent. Not sure what kind of business and how its arranged, but you mention selling prints and magazines.

[CTYankee]

I'm sorry, but you're hoping to take outdoor photos at night without a flash, there's no way to do this. People can talk about the 50 mm f/1.8 all they want, or the 70-200 mm f/2.8, but you're going to need to spend like $5000 on lenses if you want to achieve results in your situation.

You'll save $4700 by buying a flash and a diffuser. :p The flash and diffuser will probably cost you a few hundred dollars. The diffuser makes sure that the people you take photos of don't look like a spotlight was shone at them when the photo was taken (ie: they're very bright, and everything behind them is dark). It'll give it a more natural look than your point & shoot flash.

If they are shooting events with any light then a 1.8 50mm or 85mm will be more useful than a flash and produce better results. Live performances often don't allow flash. Not to mention flash makes them look...well...like a flash hit them. I don't care what diffuser is used, flash as a source of light changes photos of stage acts. Also, if there is any action the flash will produce very dark unnatural looking backgrounds. Dragging the shutter will help this, but then you'd get some blur in the subject from the slow shutter.

Now, 'grip and grin' kind of photos will benefit from a flash. These allow you to get additional light and keep your background looking natural. Ditch the diffuser. They are largely a gimmick. The also flood the subject with light and eliminate all shadows. Yuck. Bounced flash (even off a person with a white shirt) is far better and works just as well. The black background has nothing do do with a diffuser, its from the shutter speed being too fast at the exposure to capture any ambient light.

[Abstract]

If they are shooting events with any light then a 1.8 50mm or 85mm will be more useful than a flash and produce better results. Live performances often don't allow flash. Not to mention flash makes them look...well...like a flash hit them. I don't care what diffuser is used, flash as a source of light changes photos of stage acts.

....Ditch the diffuser. They are largely a gimmick. The also flood the subject with light and eliminate all shadows. Yuck. Bounced flash (even off a person with a white shirt) is far better and works just as well.

Well I was suggesting that he use his kit lens and use a flash when photographing people in the crowd. He's not just photographing the act on stage.

I suggested the diffuser because one of the best options, which is to point your flash up and let the light bounce off the ceiling, won't be possible outdoors.

For far away photos, I suggested the 105 mm f2 DC because I've seen them used, and maybe it won't be impossible for him to purchase. It'll still be over his budget, though.

And the Nikon D40 performs excellent at ISO 1600, around the same as the 350D or 400D.

[CTYankee]

I suggested the diffuser because one of the best options, which is to point your flash up and let the light bounce off the ceiling, won't be possible outdoors.


I usually bounce from the side indoors or out. Just find a person with a light colored shirt, tell them to stand still off camera, point the flast at him/her and voila. Flash and a decent lighint patern on the face as opposed to flat and shadowless. If thats really not an option an old sock is about as effective and a heck of a lot cheaper. Try it..looks less silly too. (best when its not on tight so it can act a bit like a softbox and diffuse light in different directions.

D40 seems to be getting Nikon on the right track, but ISO 3200 look really ugly. Not bad for $500 or whatever it goes for. I still like the Canon b/c they are just moving that much faster. Nikon is just now getting to where Canon was 2 years ago with low end camera's high ISO performance.

Any way you slice it...this guy is either in way over his head or wallet. Either spend the money or use a good P&S as best you can. You can get great images from a good P&S (again...the Fuji) and then a good understanding of Photoshop. Thats where that 'glossy' look as you called it is done. Take that same image you took with your sony, apply USM at 200, 0.4, 0 and your images will really pop.

[j5uh]

iso at 1600 actually performs better on the 350d canon. the CMOS system that canon has created is way better at high iso's than the nikons. read any review. thats why i chose the rebel!

[Unspeaked]

So what do you suggest? Walking around with a light or something? When you say "good" photographer you're talking about knowing what ISO or something to use? I am liking what I see from the Rebel, this picture (http://flickr.com/photos/expeditions/455341251/) is really nice. So is this one (http://flickr.com/photos/expeditions/455327522/). Would what I described above in terms of requirements for lenses be adequate for sports? (i.e. needing a good zoom) or is there another lens I would need specifically?


::sigh::

It seems like he's got it stuck in his head that he needs a dSLR and there ain't nothin' we can say to make him see otherwise...

[Veritas&Equitas]

::sigh::

It seems like he's got it stuck in his head that he needs a dSLR and there ain't nothin' we can say to make him see otherwise...
Then it also seems that he'll be spending quite a bit of money ~$1,500ish for a decent setup for what he wants to do :rolleyes:

[steviem]

I know it isnt a dSLR, but i have a Fuji S5600, I got it because I'm getting more interested in photography, and with 10x optical zoom, a really fast response time for taking pictures, and all of the ISO/exposure time settings etc available to it, it does a really good job for me so far.
I've mainly used it for shooting snowboarding shots, and its near perfect. However, a quicker sequence mode would make it perfect.
My heart was set on a dSLR, but as this only cost me £130 I couldn't really justify buying a full-on system as I'm only just getting started really.

[CTYankee]

Then it also seems that he'll be spending quite a bit of money ~$1,500ish for a decent setup for what he wants to do :rolleyes:

Sounds like he could be another "hmmm, people pay money for photos...I can buy a camera cheap and get paid". Not knowing that to get decent images worth selling requires plenty of skill or plenty of money to buy good equipement. To get GREAT images that sell you need both. Not to mention the business side that makes sure you don't get sued for your efforts.

[Evan]

Bloody hell you people are great! this isn't even a photography forum. Thanks a whole lot for bearing with me here.

I won't be buying the camera immediately, so I suppose it might go down in price if I buy in a few months or next year or something. Also, I came here to learn what I would have to pay, no sense in saying I have $500 to buy a car when cars are usually a little more than that. Buying a good camera with lenses is seemingly a good investment for what I want to do. P&Ss are not going to give me the zoom needed (I've been to a concert, tried it, no good). Also, for performers, I don't think I would NEED a flash, stages are well lit, and while I will get in to the press area, I guess zoom is the major thing. I've tried to find images of events in nightclubs or concerts on flickr using the D40, D80 ,no such luck. Let's say I have to pay $2000 for a body, lens es, extra batteries and memory, I could live with that, I guess. $2000 seems reasonable enough for all of that I suppose, (I have to multiply by 10 when you count shipping and money conversion, plus I'm 18 so you can understand why I don't want to spend TOO much) but it's a venture that I want done well (putting these images on the web) so investment in the camera is it, only thing is I don't know what to get. Thanks for your help in this so far.

No, I don't think I'm budging from getting a DSLR, I went to a concert and was close-ish to the stage and pictures looked like CRAP! Need better zoom by far. So thank you for the suggestion of actual items to get but I'm just SO CONFUSED. Rebel, D40, D80?

Also, let's say I'm in a nightclub taking pictures - I'm hoping I can get stuff like this (http://flickr.com/photos/waxypoetic/423546791/). :D

Thanks for your help, I'll be back tonight, going to be out, but will try to take some pictures if I can get a memory card and maybe you can tell me if I'm so bad that getting a DSLR would not make a difference!

[Veritas&Equitas]

Also, let's say I'm in a nightclub taking pictures - I'm hoping I can get stuff like this (http://flickr.com/photos/waxypoetic/423546791/). :D

Yeah, exactly. He's using a Canon 30D, which will run you about $750, and the lens is a Canon 24mm f/1.4 L USM, which will run you about $1,400ish = Already over $2,100 for just the body + lens! :D

[Lovesong]

...
i'd recommend the canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L glass. its about 1600-$1700. it's one of the best for indoor/lowlight settings....

Umm... I have that lens. This lens is probably the second best walk-around lens. It's about $1200 (the IS version is about $1600). While it's the sharpest zoom I have used, it's by no means a "big zoom" (it's only 3X). From the sounds of it, he needs something in the long telephoto range- like around 400mm. Yes, Nikon makes the optically excellent 200-400 f/4 VR (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=8456&A=details&Q=&sku=300488&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation). Yes, and while on the subject of bad advice, I must tell you, as soon as I sell my kidney, I'm getting the EF 300mm f/2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=8454&A=details&Q=&sku=183202&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation).

But seriously Evan, unless you understand what you need, and why you need it, you shouldn't waste your time or money on something that might or might not be of use to you. A big zoom does not equate SLR. In fact most SLR lenses that are worth it are a 2-3X, although it matters what its length is (for example a 24-70 lens is about a 3X, as is a 70-200, but the latter is "longer", in that it is more of a telephoto, and less of a wideangle).
What everyone has been saying is that the more reach you need (the longer) lenses are the most expensive. Yes, if you had money I really would suggest the two lenses I linked up, because they would serve your purpose, and do what you want. But unless you can pull the 5K from somewhere (mind you this is only for the glass), I seriously would look at super-zoom cameras.

Good luck, mate.

[Lovesong]

Yeah, exactly. He's using a Canon 30D, which will run you about $750, and the lens is a Canon 24mm f/1.4 L USM, which will run you about $1,400ish = Already over $2,100 for just the body + lens! :D

Now, now.... he's only using the 17-40 f/4 L. That's only a $700 lens. :rolleyes:

[Veritas&Equitas]

Now, now.... he's only using the 17-40 f/4 L. That's only a $700 lens. :rolleyes:
Nope, he used the 17-40 on different shots, not the nightclub ones. The nightclub/band ones he used the 24mm f/1.4. Check the tags for yourself (http://flickr.com/photos/waxypoetic/tags/canonef24mmf14lusm/page2/).

[Lovesong]

You sure? http://flickr.com/photos/waxypoetic/tags/canonef1740mmf4lusm/

(Top, third from the left)

[Veritas&Equitas]

Yup, I am. You can check the entire second row for the link I gave you. Either way, maybe he switched in between taking the shots, using both?

[CTYankee]

EXIF says 17mm at f4.

To the OP...if you walk into a concert or club with a DSLR and long lens you are inviting large men with authority (and a chip on their shoulder) to check you for credentials. Failure to produce them usually results in an uncomfortable escorting to a back room, where you wait a long time for official representatives who then ask what you are doing and delete your photos. P&S cameras are largely ignored. This does depend on the venue and performers. Most A and B list acts do not allow photography with this kind of gear and many venues simply don't allow SLR cameras.

So again...make sure you do this right. Failure to do things by the book can result in bad times.

[Richard Flynn]

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I have a Canon EOS 20D, with 17–85mm f/4–5.6 (came with the body), 70–200mm f/2.8 IS, and 10–22mm f/3.5–4.5 (bought here on MacRumors) lenses. I'm not a professional photographer, but am very passionate about taking pictures and improving my skills. For example, this (northern) summer I will be going on a photography course/tour in the Australian outback, and am very much looking forward to it.

The impression that you've given so far of yourself, Evan, is that you don't know all that much about the more technical aspects of digital photography. You know 'I want my photos to look like this', but you don't really know how technically to achieve the effects you're after. You've found photos you like on Flickr, and have looked at the bodies used to take those photos. That's fine as far as it goes, but you should understand—as others have variously pointed out—that the specifications of a camera aren't what make the photo. The well-worn adage goes 'it's not the camera that takes the photo, it's the photographer!', and while I have got slightly sick of hearing that, nevertheless it remains true.

I'm not going to discourage you from your quest to get an SLR. However, I would encourage you to learn as much as possible about the technical facets of (digital) photography, both in-camera (effective exposure, creative framing, shake, filters, flash—both on- and off-camera) and post-processing (the advantages of shooting raw over JPEG, creative effects in Photoshop, perhaps whether Aperture or Lightroom are suitable for you, etc.). By doing proper research into photography rather than just into equipment, you'll be in a far better position to appreciate how to achieve what you want to do.

I am gathering a library of photography books. One that I would really recommend to you is Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson (currently $14.97 USD (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-Photographs-Digital-Updated/dp/0817463003/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3588430-7383923?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176396047&sr=8-1) on Amazon). That book is very clearly written, and is quite extensive on theory and practice, both basic and slightly more advanced. You say it'll be a while before you buy any equipment. My recommendation is that you buy this book and read it now, so that you begin to get an idea of photographic technique, rather than continuing to think, 'I'll buy a really good (read: expensive) camera and will propter hoc take really good photographs'.

I hope this sounds reasonable. I'm not trying to 'rain on your parade' or to discourage you, but rather to dissuade you from jumping into the wild world of photography without appreciating what you will and won't be able to do.

Of course, for the moment, I would recommend that you carry on using your point-and-shoot in any and all situations, experiment with framing, play with software, see what you can achieve as things currently stand.

[CTYankee]

Also, let's say I'm in a nightclub taking pictures - I'm hoping I can get stuff like this (http://flickr.com/photos/waxypoetic/423546791/). :D

While you do need the gear to get shots like this...knowing how to use the camera is far more important. You say you want to use a DSLR like a point and shoot...well if so you will rarely if ever get shots like that. From not knowing how to adjust for the environment (very brigh light in teh background) or to get different lighting effects (how to draw out light from the background). You will miss out in what makes SLR camera so much better than P&S if you don't learn aperture, SS, ISO, DOF, flash, exposure compensation, etc...

[failsafe1]

I think I need something from Nikon (http://flickr.com/cameras/nikon/) since I hear they are really reliable.

Don't buy into the Nikon better than fill in the blank argument from others. Most cameras in the same class are just as rugged as the next. I mean by this that all the cameras a working pro would choose from are all about the same when it comes to ruggedness. The same can probably be said for prosumer cameras. All fall roughly into the same build quality. I know there can be exceptions but for name brand stuff I would say this is generally true. Go to a camera shop and play with the stuff. Shop for the widest array of lenses to choose from. The camera body is simply a piece of the toolbox. Glass is where it is at. For instance some lenses you may like are only available in one system. The 10.5mm Nikkor for example. Some others have other examples of this. I use Nikon and Canon to earn a living and both do a good job. Sony just came out with a new prosumer model and Fuji makes a model that accepts Nikkor lenses. Read other review sites, ask around but nothing takes the place of good old hands on goofing around.

[Unspeaked]

I still think a P&S like the Panasonic DMC-FZ50 would be perfect:



LINK (http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fz50/index.html)


It's got a 12x optical lens, which seems in line with what he's looking for, plus 10MP and built-in image stablization, which is something the Nikon bodies he's looking at are lacking.

Plus, it's right around $500!

[Lovesong]

However, I would encourage you to learn as much as possible about the technical facets of (digital) photography, both in-camera (effective exposure, creative framing, shake, filters, flash—both on- and off-camera) and post-processing (the advantages of shooting raw over JPEG, creative effects in Photoshop, perhaps whether Aperture or Lightroom are suitable for you, etc.). By doing proper research into photography rather than just into equipment, you'll be in a far better position to appreciate how to achieve what you want to do.


Best advice on this thread. Period. And I second the Bryan Peterson recomendation.

[Evan]

Hey, just letting you guys know that these are the cameras I have currently, the sony (http://flickr.com/cameras/sony/dsc-p92) and Kodak (http://flickr.com/cameras/kodak/dx7630_zoom/). I'm personally a very....antsy person, a little miserable and tend to want to rush things so I understand things take time. I'm young, what are you gonna do? :D The site I am working on is a big project so taking the time to get the book and learning. If it teaches me about what ISO really is etc then it's definitely something I should get.

With the whole thing about me just looking at the photos and saying I want pictures to look like that, yes, it's true. I've been looking at the end product but have no idea how to get there, but there are things that I have been told that make me say I definitely should get a DSLR. Things like getting the pictures to focus on people and blurring out the background is something only DSLRs can do.

I don't have the luxury of trying out these things and deciding so I'm really just trying to be sure of what to do. I don't want to be paying for $5000 in equipment that I don't need. But it'd be interesting if I could get nice looking pictures from these environments with the Panasonic DMC-FZ50. I'm going to try to assimilate all the info I've gotten in the thread (for a person like me who knows nothing on this, it's quite a lot) and I am going to be sure to ask more questions. Thanks again guys.

[Abstract]

iso at 1600 actually performs better on the 350d canon. the CMOS system that canon has created is way better at high iso's than the nikons. read any review. thats why i chose the rebel!

Well, since I only suggested the Nikon D40, and you're suggesting the Canon 350D/400D because Canon is better than Nikons at handling noise......... read DPReview (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page17.asp)


The Nikon D40 delivers cleaner images across the ISO range than the other two cameras here (Canon 350D and Pentax K100D), and it does so while maintaining good detail (although I would say this is probably second to Pentax who have a very hands-off approach to noise reduction). At ISO 1600 the D40's grey and black patches are very clean with only a hint of chroma noise, this compares very well to the K100D and EOS 350D (Rebel XT).

The graphs below confirm the visual observation, the D40 has a very similar noise curve to the D50 which only exhibits more noise than the K100D and EOS 350D at ISO 3200 (HI 1).

And besides, the photos may look different on a computer screen if you're one of those 1:1 pixel peepers, but really, the difference in noise characteristics isn't enough to really say that Evan needs to buy a Canon 400D over a Nikon D40 because of noise. That's just silly.

[Evan]

Heyyyyy! Is it safe to bring this thread up again?

I have to say that I am almost ready to make a purchase - and I think what I want is the Nikon D80. Why? Because of this blog post.
(http://paulstamatiou.com/2007/05/14/an-ode-to-dslr-cameras/)


Look at the part of the article, examples, see where he was sitting and how much he had to zoom? That's basically what I need so I think the D80 with that lens is the way to go. Thoughts?

[Veritas&Equitas]

Right now, at its price point, the D80 is a GREAT camera to buy.

[Evan]

Okay, now I am seeing people are getting problems with that lense. The 18-200 seems to be better, (better zoom I imagine, but obviously is more expensive).

Can I get the D40 instead with the same Lenses? Are they not like the same thing?