I've decided to get serious about photography, camera recommendations? [Archive]

iBookG4user

Jul 18, 2007, 03:21 AM

I've really been toying with the idea of getting into photography lately and I've decided that I'd like to get serious about it. When I go to college I've decided to minor in photography and I need to start building up my portfolio. I can't do that with my camera that I have right now (a crappy Aiptek camcorder that I got for $100), so I'd like to buy a dSLR so I can get some nice shots. I should be getting about $550 within the month and when I get my paycheck on the 1st, I can add about $100 to the dSLR fund. So that'll be about $650 if I wait until August 1st to buy.

From what I've researched so far, I've found that the Nikon D40 seems to be a really good camera that is about my price range. But, I thought I'd come to MacRumors to get some expert opinions on it. I'm not set on one brand or another, I just want to get the best picture for the price. The $650 will have to cover both the camera and the lenses, so a Camera that comes with good lenses would be best. Thanks in advance for help!

siurpeeman

Jul 18, 2007, 03:25 AM

maybe you could take a class about photography first before deciding on a camera to buy. you might have a better idea of what you want afterward. just a suggestion.

iBookG4user

Jul 18, 2007, 03:32 AM

maybe you could take a class about photography first before deciding on a camera to buy. you might have a better idea of what you want afterward. just a suggestion.

Well, I need to have my portfolio finished by the middle of August. That's when I'm going to the East Coast to look at the colleges I'm considering and doing the interview to show off my portfolio. So I really don't have the time to do that and then get the camera and then start building up my portfolio.

Lovesong

Jul 18, 2007, 03:37 AM

When you get into the low-end dSLR photography market, there is very little difference between the manifacturers, and what you're getting for your money. $650 will indeed buy you a D40 with a kit lens. It will also buy you either a Pentax 100D, or an Olympus E-500 with a 2 lens kit. The Nikon allows for the most expansion, in that while the D40 has no autofocus motor, when you get into Nikon, and if you get serious about it, you will have access to the most lenses and more bodies, should you choose to upgrade eventually. The Olympus is likely to be the easiest of the three to get into the SLR world, as you will have all the lenses (focal length-wise) you will need for a while, and the anti-dust will keep you from having to learn how to clean a sensor. The Pentax is the best-built of the three, and has in-body stabilization, not that that's something to write home about, but it's there, and can be useful.

One thing to consider is that if you're going to be attending school, they will MAKE you get a film camera. For that kind of money you can get a really nice body and some lenses (used for either would work- check out keh.com), and you wont have to fret about your school having you spend more money on equipment later on.

creator2456

Jul 18, 2007, 05:39 AM

I have a nice Pentax SP II with most of the bells and whistles for film and I have just decided that it is time to get into the dSLR market as well. My price range is going to be around $800, so I will look into the cameras that Lovesong has suggested. Any further suggestions would be helpful as well since I am not a "serious" photographer and the more advice the better.

This would mostly be used for personal photos along with a semi-pro approach to photo as I am a graphic design major and having your own photo catalogue is extremely helpful, so the BEST of the best isn't necessary but something that will last me a while is.

M@lew

Jul 18, 2007, 05:43 AM

Since you're pretty "iffy" about how you want to get into photography I recommend one of the following cameras.

Nikon - D40, D50

Canon - 350D, 400D (Or Rebel XT and XTi)

They're very good beginner cameras, and keep in mind they're pretty either camera from both brands are pretty much the same, just an upgrade of each other. Meaning the XT -> XTi and D50 -> D40.

They're pretty good for a budget shopper since you don't have any existing lenses the D40 shouldn't be too bad. There are some "issues" people will tell you so just research into them if you want to buy any lenses for the D40 should you get it.

Abstract

Jul 18, 2007, 06:23 AM

I think you should get the Nikon D40 (you don't need the 10 MP "X" model....and it's not better or worth the price difference (like I said, it's not really better, IMO)), and when you get to uni, buy a film Nikon SLR. As long as you don't get "DX" (made for digital) Nikon lenses, you should be able to use your lenses on both cameras. :)

If possible, I would try to get a Nikon 24-85 mm AF-S lens, or something similar, rather than the kit lens (18-55 mm) it comes with. That way, you can use it on your film camera as well. If you get the 18-55 mm lens that comes with the D40 kit, you won't be able to use that lens on a film camera, since it's too small (digital CCD sensors are smaller than film, and "DX" lenses are made smaller to cover the smaller CCD sensors, but aren't large enough to cover a 35 mm film).

Also, this lens is AF-S, which means it can autofocus on your D40. If you get a lens that only says AF, it won't autofocus on your D40 (despite the fact that "AF" stands for auto-focus :o ).

If you don't like that recommendation:

My other recommendation is to get a Pentax or Canon and follow the same advice as above. :) The Canon will be more expensive for what you get, while Pentax cameras are a bargain for what you get, although it's slightly harder to get lenses. However, there are lots of online shops that sell lenses, and everything related to retail is moving in that direction anyway, so you shouldn't have too much trouble finding what you want. :)

creator2456

Jul 18, 2007, 08:57 AM

That way, you can use it on your film camera as well.

I know next to nothing when it comes to the lenses and whatnot, but can you clarify this for me?

Would the lenses I have for my Pentax SP II work with a Pentax digital?

The lenses connect with threads, not a quick lock like i've seen on newer cameras...will this be an issue?

failsafe1

Jul 18, 2007, 09:21 AM

Too soon to shop for a expensive camera. Take a class, use a cheap camera to learn the basics. Back in the film days that meant a Pentax K1000 and a 50mm lens. I read that Pentax is coming out with the digital version of the K1000 perhaps for the same market. My daughter just needed a camera for her art school stuff and we bought a cheap Canon autofocus outfit for less than $300 but that was a film camera. She learned the basics and may move into digital soon. As a professional photographer I see too many people buy too much camera to start with and get discouraged and quit shooting before they barely get started. Start small and work up. Shop for used also. There are good places to shop outside of eBay. Look at KEH in Atlanta. When you are ready to buy look at something like the Canon Rebel XTS aka 350D they are $399 used at B and H. KEH has several cameras/lens outfits around the same price. Friends who have cameras are a good way to shoot and learn what you like. A day of shooting with friends is a great day. I have been out sharing lenses with friends on several occasions while I was saving up to get gear.

Abstract

Jul 18, 2007, 09:37 AM

I'm just commenting on the Nikon D40 and D40x, not DSLRs in general. Unlike other DSLRs, the Nikon D40(x) doesn't have a focus motor, which takes up space and adds weight. Because of this, it can't autofocus using AF lenses (despite the fact that "AF" stands for autofocus). You can still manual focus using most Nikon lenses, but not autofocus. Why? Because the motor in the camera would normally focus the camera, and now it's gone! Instead, the D40(x) can only use AF-S lenses, which focus quieter and faster than conventional AF, and utilizes superior technology. The problem is that Nikon's other DSLRs can autofocus using either AF or AF-S lenses, as they all have a motor inside. They can also use AF-S lenses. This means that D40 and D40X cameras can only use AF-S lenses, which limits the type of lenses they can buy (if you want to autofocus using that particular lens).

With regards to Pentax, I think all Pentax autofocus (AF) lenses should still autofocus on their DSLR models. In fact, Pentax just implemented their Supersonic motor system (or whatever they call it.....Ultrasonic Motor, Silent Wave Motor, etc etc) into the K100D Super and K10D models. Now, they can use the upcoming Pentax lenses that will have this technology! They don't have them yet, but Nikon certainly has lots of AF-S lenses. However, if you want to use normal AF lenses, you won't be able to autofocus using them on a new D40 or D40x.

freebooter

Jul 18, 2007, 12:48 PM

I'm liking my Nikon D40. The 18-55mm kit lens is good, better than the Canon kit lens 'they' say, so no worries there. A better choice might be the 18-135mm lens, though--better coverage, perhaps a bit sharper. The D40 is easy to use/learn, small and light so you'll have no prob.s taking it anywhere. I would also consider the newest Pentax K 100D Super. They just upgraded it to include some features the competitors don't have, like in-camera anti-shake.
Either of these will get you started well.

djbahdow01

Jul 18, 2007, 03:10 PM

Hate to say it but a lot of schools still use Film so you will be learning on film to start out, unless you are taking digital only courses. Black & White processing, darkroom work, color theory, lighting, basic camera settings, etc. At least thats what was going on 2 years ago. A whole lot to learn before heading to digital, unless the school has made the switch, which doesn't make too much sense, still want to see how long the old school way is.

I'd recommend picking up a decent P&S where you can play with the settings and what not. That way you can atleast have some feed back in your photography before taking the plunge on a dSLR. And you can still get great shots with it as well. You might need a film camera for school so make sure you know what you are doing for school before dropping the big $$.

Karpfish

Jul 18, 2007, 03:35 PM

Jht

Jul 18, 2007, 03:52 PM

I bought a D40 earlier on in the year as my first DSLR, really loving it, no problems at all, I say go for it:)

termina3

Jul 18, 2007, 04:03 PM

And also, most schools are moving away from film. I am taking some classes at UCLA this summer, and when I got here I was told that UCLA actually tore down their darkroom in favor of building a digital lab. I think a lot of schools are going this way.

I'm in a small (1400 person) K-12 school which just built a 50K++ lab for the high school... and the teacher despises digital--says it won't "last" and it's not "archival quality" (doesn't matter! you can just keep moving the files to a new HDD or disc! ugh!). The money would've been much better off going towards a mac video/photo/music lab with 20 Mac Pros... grrr...

Nanpd

Jul 18, 2007, 10:52 PM

I like the idea of going with either Pentax or Nikon if you're not sure that your university doesn't require film work. I've always had Nikon (and just sold most of my film equipment on EBAY), but worked in a camera store all through law school. Nikon and Pentax have put in the most effort at lens compatibility and if you stay away from the digital only lenses, you can use a significant number of the older lenses on the digital bodies (but not necessarily the Nikon 40, which is more restricted in compatibility) and can use the newer lenses on the film bodies. I have the Nikon 50, which is now available used through several reputable dealers. If you don't need the film camera compatibility, the current Canon digital Rebel is a nice camera.

Creator 2456:You need to check the Pentax site but I don't think the screw mount lenses are compatible. My understanding is that the K-mount bayonet lenses are mostly compatible.

sjl

Jul 19, 2007, 02:28 AM

Nikon and Pentax have put in the most effort at lens compatibility and if you stay away from the digital only lenses, you can use a significant number of the older lenses on the digital bodies (but not necessarily the Nikon 40, which is more restricted in compatibility) and can use the newer lenses on the film bodies. I have the Nikon 50, which is now available used through several reputable dealers. If you don't need the film camera compatibility, the current Canon digital Rebel is a nice camera.

Excuse me? You are saying, in effect, "Nikon and Pentax DSLR and film SLRs are both compatible with their lenses as long as you stay away from digital only lenses, but Canon DSLR and film SLRs aren't"? That is an outright falsehood. If you take away "digital only" lenses, all current DSLRs take lenses that will also mount on current film SLR bodies from the same manufacturer. Canon's "digital only" series is the EF-S lineup, covering the EF-S 10-22mm, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, EF-S 17-85mm, EF-S 18-55mm, and EF-S 60mm macro. These five lenses (as I write) are the only ones in Canon's lineup that will mount on a limited number of bodies (the EOS 20D, 30D, 300D (Rebel), 350D (Rebel XT), and 400D (XTi), as I write this.) All other lenses produced by Canon in the EF mount (ie: all current lenses) will mount and work properly on every EOS SLR camera produced by Canon, starting with the EOS 650 (1987) through to the EOS 1D mark III (earlier this year).

Yes, the field of view will be different on (most) DSLRs when compared to the same lens mounted on a 35mm film camera, but that's an issue for every company that makes both film and digital SLRs (except, ironically, Canon, if you're looking at the 5D or 1Ds series of cameras on the digital side.)

The only incompatibility of note in the Canon lineup comes about as a result of the FD-EF mount changeover ... which happened in 1987. Buy any EOS film camera, and it will mount any lens you might buy for your EOS DSLR, with the exceptions noted above. The likelihood of stumbling across an FD lens or body is very low these days, so it is not a consideration in my book (102 auctions, worldwide, on eBay as I write this comment.) I don't think I've ever seen a sale where somebody might confuse FD gear for EF gear, short of failing basic reading comprehension ...

Royale w/cheese

Jul 19, 2007, 02:37 AM

I have never had any problems with Canons. I love them. Can't make make too many other points than have already been outlined on here though.

compuwar

Jul 19, 2007, 05:49 AM

Sorry Dude, but you're taking this way too fast. You shouldn't really expect to buy your camera in the first week of August, and then have images good enough to show as a portfolio to colleges in the middle of August. Showing a bad portfolio cn actually hurt you.

I agree with this post. Even if you had two months, getting your first dSLR, learning to use it well and getting portfolio-quality images in the first month isn't likely to net more than a handful of images, and that's if you've really got vision, you can execute on a new platform and you've got the right environment (since you're not going to be doing studio shots.)

The D40 will do well, but I wouldn't expect to be able to create any sort of diverse body of work inside a month with any camera body. Get it if you want to shoot and learn and decide about your major, but don't get it thinking you're going to show up with a complete portfolio that quickly.

kwajo.com

Jul 19, 2007, 08:10 AM

Creator 2456:You need to check the Pentax site but I don't think the screw mount lenses are compatible. My understanding is that the K-mount bayonet lenses are mostly compatible.

Actually Pentax screw mount lenses work fine, complete with full auto-exposure metering (Pentax is the only company that maintains that kind of legacy compatibility). You will need an adapter to allow the M42 screw mount to fit on the K bayonet mount, but it will work fine after that. Heck, with the K100D or K10D, you will even be able to use image stabilisation on those 40+ year old screw mounts too, which is pretty impressive when you think about it.

All k-mounts should work, and if they are AF that should work as well. This is why I recommend Pentax for the OP, he's already got a film body, he might as well stay in the same system. The K100D is a fantastic camera for the money, it is built very solid and is excellent in almost any conditions you can imagine (I've taken mine to hell and back - so to speak).

Abstract

Jul 19, 2007, 08:50 AM

......is excellent in almost any conditions you can imagine (I've taken mine to hell and back - so to speak).

Well you do live in New Brunswick. ;)

kwajo.com

Jul 19, 2007, 10:34 AM

Well you do live in New Brunswick.

Well I did say I took my camera "to hell and back," and New Brunswick does border the USA...
:p

Mike Teezie

Jul 19, 2007, 12:12 PM

djbahdow01

Jul 19, 2007, 12:32 PM

You have a valid point, and I love the disclaimer. I do plan on doing the dual Canon/Nikon deal in the future. The Canons are much nicer in low light for noise suppression. I love my Nikon and its glass. But I do wish they had an 85 1.2, shot with it once on a Canon 1D and it was awesome.

I don't plan on switching anytime soon, but one word of advice to the OP if you do plan on doing the dSLR the entry level ones are all about the same, go test them out at your local camera store to see which ne feels better in your hands. You can still get great images with the entry level ones, you may not have all of the features of a Pro level body but it will still be a learning experience.

And as many other posters have said you have very little time to build a portfolio, I would work at it and learn your camera, you do not want to show a few snap shots of images in your portfolio, it takes time. I worked on mine for over a year to get what I felt was a worthy portfolio. Now I continue to build it every day.

As a good friend has said "you don't take photos, you make them"

Mike Teezie

Jul 19, 2007, 12:46 PM

I don't plan on switching anytime soon, but one word of advice to the OP if you do plan on doing the dSLR the entry level ones are all about the same, go test them out at your local camera store to see which ne feels better in your hands. You can still get great images with the entry level ones, you may not have all of the features of a Pro level body but it will still be a learning experience.

Not enough can be said about this. Nikon cameras feel so ridiculously good in your hands compared to Canons, until you get into the Canon 1 series bodies, where it's sort of a tie.

I was a bit miffed that my $3k 5D feels awkward and under-designed compared to a bottom of the line D50.

Go play with them. At the end of the day, they're just tools as you know. Get one, and starting making photos.

art gardiner

Jul 19, 2007, 05:40 PM

iBookG4User - I've really been toying with the idea of getting into photography lately and I've decided that I'd like to get serious about it. When I go to college I've decided to minor in photography and I need to start building up my portfolio. I can't do that with my camera that I have right now (a crappy Aiptek camcorder that I got for $100), so I'd like to buy a dSLR so I can get some nice shots. I should be getting about $550 within the month and when I get my paycheck on the 1st, I can add about $100 to the dSLR fund. So that'll be about $650 if I wait until August 1st to buy.

From what I've researched so far, I've found that the Nikon D40 seems to be a really good camera that is about my price range. But, I thought I'd come to MacRumors to get some expert opinions on it. I'm not set on one brand or another, I just want to get the best picture for the price. The $650 will have to cover both the camera and the lenses, so a Camera that comes with good lenses would be best. Thanks in advance for help!

Just a couple of quick questions:

What kind of a school are you wanting to apply to? i.e. - university, trade... academic, or art?
You state that you want to "minor" in Photography (ok, I'll put that one aside), what do you want to major in?
What do you want to be able to do with your portfolio?

and finally,

Are you planning on registering for the fall semester?

If you're planning to attend an Art school/university; use your portfolio to gain admittance into school; and register for the fall semester - you might want to talk to the Admin Office of the schools you are wanting to check out. If you are only going to minor in photography, then you won't need a photographers portfolio; however, you will need the correct portfolio per your major's discipline, and the format will very from school to school depending on what you want to study.

That said, it sounds like you are really new to photography, and might do better to take a class at one of your local/county adult education centers. The cost is extremely reasonable, and are usually lead by accomplished photographers. And, (before you drop your head in disgust) take a traditional film course - you will actually learn the basic principles of photography faster; develop skills and discipline that you would otherwise miss by going straight to digital (read - learning visualization, patience; and purpose); as well as, most Art Colleges still require the use of film in a perspective photography student's portfolio.

So, while you might think that you would be waisting your time, and money by going with a traditional "wet" photography course, if your end goal is to be admitted to an Art school as either a Fine-Art Photographer, or a Photojournalist - you will actually be doing what is required. Used film bodies and lens are going for a song right now on e-Bay, KEH, Adorama, and B&H Photo. With $500.00 you will be able to purchase a very nice 35mm setup (any camera manufacture will do), a 50mm (normal) lens, and still have $250 - $300 left over for film, filters, paper, and classes. Once you're into it (and if you still find yourself strapped for cash), you can always sell your camera body, and/or lens and probably make back what you paid for it.

If nothing else, don't buy a bunch of camera equipment right off the bat. It will take you a while to master the camera body itself, and longer before you really know the strengths and weakness of your first lens. The simpler the setup, the faster you will learn to use your equipment to their fullest potential - the better your photography results will be.

HTH,

Art

ChrisA

Jul 19, 2007, 07:15 PM

[On your budget I would not go for a new DSRL. If you are REALLY serious about photography go for a film camera and load it with black and white film. You can buy the film in 100 foot bulk rools for "way cheap" A really nice Nikon film SLR will set you back about $100. If you do take a photography class this as almost certainly what they will require you to have -- black and white film.

Get a camera like maybe an old Nikromat and a 35mm f/2.0 lens for about $100 then pick up a 105mm. Put the negatives in a film scanner. For final quality will blow away any DSLR.

If you must have a new electronic camera AND you are serious about this AND you have a very limited budget skip the D40. The D40 will not work with some of Nikon's best lenses.
Your best buy right now might be a used D100. If you are serious about photography what you should care about are lenses and the D100 has the best lens options for someone with a limited budget. The D100 can use all those 20 year old Nikon manual lenses like the 105mm above. this lens is absolutly outstanding and yu can pick one up for maybe $80 now.

You problem is that all the good new lenses are wel over you budget and you are going to want two or three of them.

Don't worry about the body. They don't mater. figureout what lenses you want then go buy a body to fit. You don't need all those automatic features if youintend to read and take classes

Not enough can be said about this. Nikon cameras feel so ridiculously good in your hands compared to Canons, until you get into the Canon 1 series bodies, where it's sort of a tie.

Go back a few years and this is REALLY true. If you are shopping for a full manual film camera. And you should be if you are a art/photo student then back n the days before automatic focus no one seriously debated Nikon vs. Canon. Every wanted a Nikon but few could afford one. Canon has caught up and prices have fallen (relative to buyer's income) all around.

The other thing that is different is that today's Nikons can still to some extent interchange parts with older manual Nikons. So if you buy an older Nikon you can painlessly upgrade if you do some planning.

Canon seems to jump on technology faster than Nikon. They tend to have "everything" first. Nikon seems to be very conservative makes changes slowly and works on the user controls. Not saying which is best just that the companies are different.

bocomo

Jul 19, 2007, 09:17 PM

Sorry Dude, but you're taking this way too fast. You shouldn't really expect to buy your camera in the first week of August, and then have images good enough to show as a portfolio to colleges in the middle of August. Showing a bad portfolio cn actually hurt you.

And also, most schools are moving away from film. I am taking some classes at UCLA this summer, and when I got here I was told that UCLA actually tore down their darkroom in favor of building a digital lab. I think a lot of schools are going this way.

here's a great response. don't worry too much about which camera, etc. just get a dSLR so you will be adjusting aperture and shutter speed and manually focusing and don't worry about it. that's a REALLY tight schedule for putting together a serious portfolio. are the schools you are looking at really that serious about undergrad admission portfolios? if you can meet with faculty and demonstrate the desire and the ability to talk about photography and what you want to do, i believe you will be just fine.

as for the people talking about film - sorry, that's mostly in medium and large format classes. digital really has taken hold (at least at the three schools i have been teaching in the past few years)

best of luck

iBookG4user

Jul 19, 2007, 09:57 PM

What kind of a school are you wanting to apply to? i.e. - university, trade... academic, or art?

I'm applying to an art university that does photography, Graphic Design, and various other things like that.

You state that you want to "minor" in Photography (ok, I'll put that one aside), what do you want to major in?

I'm going to major in Graphic Design, but I've always had an interest in photography, so I thought it would make a great minor. I would be happy becoming a photographer or a graphic designer.

What do you want to be able to do with your portfolio?

I'd really like to build it up, I only have a couple good drawings in there. But I'd also like some good photographs as well.

Are you planning on registering for the fall semester?

No, I'm going to be a Senior in high school this fall. The interview is to see what it is like and get critiques on my portfolio.

I really do not want to get into film photography this late, I would much rather get a dSLR and use it for a while than get a film camera and have to sell it off.

creator2456

Jul 19, 2007, 10:23 PM

I thought it would make a great minor.

I am majoring in GD and I have to say that you are correct on this. When a designer can do more on his own (design, photograph, etc.) and do them well, the more work they will get.

I'd really like to build it up, I only have a couple good drawings in there. But I'd also like some good photographs as well.

Building your portfolio is always a good idea, but it doesn't have to focus on your primary media. I go to UIC and every art student must complete a first year program before declaring a major and submiting a portfolio for review. As I said, I am majoring in GD but GD only made up about 25% of my portfolio with photography ('wet' prints and digital prints from negatives) being another 25%. The rest was everything from simple 2 minute sketches to video work I had done.

I really do not want to get into film photography this late.

At least buy a b&w photo textbook to study up on...I have about 3 years experience with b&w (little bit of color) film photography and I am still a little daunted by switching my focus over to digital.

bocomo

Jul 20, 2007, 12:39 AM

I am majoring in GD and I have to say that you are correct on this. When a designer can do more on his own (design, photograph, etc.) and do them well, the more work they will get.

careful - i "minored" in photo as a graphic design major many years ago. i changed my major to photo after skipping classes to stay in the darkroom!

:)

At least buy a b&w photo textbook to study up on...I have about 3 years experience with b&w (little bit of color) film photography and I am still a little daunted by switching my focus over to digital.

my fav photo books are digital photography by ben long and photography by london, upton, et al

can't go wrong with those two in your arsenal

art gardiner

Jul 20, 2007, 11:26 AM

iBookG4User,

Ok, knowing what your plans are is essential in getting any meaningful assistance. As another poster eluded to, GD is a "mixed medium" and knowing how to properly expose/compose a photograph to showcase your designs "vision" will be a vital part of your key to success as a graphic designer.

Most Art schools still require every incoming freshman to take an "Intro to B&W Photography" course as a part of their core curriculum. While over 90% of these students have never shot film in their life prior to taking this course, those that had were essential in assisting their fellow classmates with getting around in the darkroom, developing film, prints, etc. (This can be helpful in acclimating you to your new environment.) While there are those that feel "film" is dead with the exception of LF work, they are often the same photographers that are not very fluid with strobes - the devil is in the details, and "digital" (as great an asset as it is) still lacks the dynamic range of film.

If nothing else, please do yourself a favor and go to your local library and pick up a copy of Ansel Adams' series; The Camera, The Negative, and The Print. Each will delve a little deeper into the "Zone System", which aids the photographer in understanding how to analyze any given scene - how to take a photo of something black, and make it come out black, and vice-versa with white, etc. This technique will translate to color photography as well, and even further when it comes to digital. While most digital camera's "Auto" white balance can usually be in the right ballpark, the more variations of light sources (i.e. - taking a photograph inside a room lit with florescent lights, a window, and/or varying strong colors laying about the subject you're about to shoot), the more you will need to know about custom white balance, gels, and filters - all in order to make your whites look white, and keep your other colors from looking muddy and heavily saturated with digital noise.

Ok, sorry about the photo lesson. But back on topic - as for getting a usable portfolio together, go to each of the Universities web sites and see what their portfolio requirements are prior to even talking to them. They will tell you what is expected of each discipline, and provide you with dates of their annual portfolio reviews. Give contact information about the staff, and each department head, and usually let you know if there is any flex in their portfolio submission guidelines - direct entry formulas, etc.

As you are planning to attend school on the east coast and live on the west, you might want to stop by a local community college that offers degree plans in graphic design, as well as photography. The instructors will usually be up on any camera/photography clubs in the area, which will be a great source for making contacts, and play with various brands of camera gear. Several people have already posted their preference for one camera system over another. While each brand has their strong suits, it really comes down to two things: what fits your intended subject matter the best; and what brand/model feels the most intuitive to use. Each is a compromise, and YOU are the only one that can answer them. Unfortunately, this takes both time, and access to the pleathra of equipment out on the market today - the good news, you have the time to get it accomplished with out having to take shortcuts, but if I were you I would get started asap.

Talk to people (face-to-face), go to a local camera store (or pawn shop) and try to work with as many different brands, and models (with as many different bodies & lens) as you can. The camera stores might have equipment that you can rent over the weekend (for a savings - but bring one of your parents with you as they will most likely require a full deposit to cover the cost of replacement should anything happen); pawn shops often will tend to specialize in one area of the used market, and you should be able to find one that has a large inventory of quality cameras and lens; and the camera/photography clubs will offer you the chance to meet others in your area with similar interests, as well as the oppurtunity to get to work with some of their gear, their experience, and maybe the chance to assist with them.

What ever you choose to do, I think that you will find your fellow photographers to be very helpful when it comes to assisting you with their experience, and talent. Everyone started somewhere, sometime, and most of us not only remember those that helped us along the way, but are eagger to repay the favor.

Good luck, and let me know if I can be of any help.

Art

QuantumLo0p

Jul 20, 2007, 01:43 PM

Find a good pro or semi-pro camera shop. Check out body sizes, how they fit your hand is critical. Tell the techies what you want to shoot.

Nikon or Canon, you will be fine with either.

For me the clear choice is Nikon, period.

ChrisA

Jul 20, 2007, 04:12 PM

Find a good pro or semi-pro camera shop. Check out body sizes, how they fit your hand is critical.

I used to give same advice but now I've decided not to say this.

Back in the days of manual SLRs you might buy an SLR body and expect to shoot with it for decades. I still have some decades old SLR bodies. But the new DSLRs are so "ephemeral" that they are more like buying a brick of film. A DSLR is a consumable item now. As much as we'd like to think our $800 little box will last for decades, it won't. No one wants a 5 or 6 year old DSLR. In 20 years this will change after the technology becomes mature but now in 2007 in is new and all new technologies change fast.

DSLR bodies are more like computers, nobody expects a computer to last for decades, not that it will break bt that you just will not want to use that long becasue the new ones are better, faster and cheaper

However "SLR Sytems" do last for decades or even for a lifetime.
When you buy into an SLR system, either Canon, Nikon or Pentax you really can't change. Well you can change but it's like spouses, changing them out is neither pleasant nor inexpensive best to get a system you can keep.

So, My opinion now is NOT to choose a brand or system of SLR based on something as ephemeral as which entry-level body fits your hand.

iBookG4user

Jul 21, 2007, 04:33 AM

Ok, after a lot of looking around and looking at reviews I've narrowed my choice of camera to two models, the Nikon D40 and the Canon Digital Rebel XT (not XTi). I will barely be about to sqeeze the Canon into my budget, but I can manage to. The problem is that I have a 2GB SD card laying around that I'd be able to put into the Nikon D40 and use, although I'd have to go out and buy a 2GB Compact Flash card. This puts the Canon over $100 more than the Nikon D40. Which would you recommend?

M@lew

Jul 21, 2007, 05:49 AM

Decide if you want Canon or Nikon lenses.

netdog

Jul 21, 2007, 05:54 AM

If you can scrape together the money for a D40x, it is a much better camera.

Personally, I would recommend a Lumix L1 (like a Leica Digilux 3) which can be had for less than $1100, but I understand that is outside your budget by a long way. Still, you might want to take a look at what the glass on these cameras produces. Once you buy into a system, you are pretty much married to it and I think it is far better to buy something with a truly great piece of glass from the start. Glass is fairly mature whereas if you take up photography seriously, expect to replace your camera back in the next few years.

netdog

Jul 21, 2007, 06:01 AM

Also, start reading DP Review (http://www.dpreview.com/) and pay particular attention to the forums (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/) there. Like the forums here, they are an excellent resource for beginners and pros alike.

M@lew

Jul 21, 2007, 06:04 AM

If you can scrape together the money for a D40x, it is a much better camera.

Not really. Just more megapixels than the D40 and better iso. Otherwise same camera.

netdog

Jul 21, 2007, 06:10 AM

Not really. Just more megapixels than the D40 and better iso. Otherwise same camera.

Okay, much better was an exaggeration. I stand corrected.

It does also have slightly faster continuous shooting as well. Not a big deal, but another plus.

This from DP Review's conclusion after thoroughly reviewing the D40x:

So in conclusion, the D40X really is just as good as the D40, with the added benefit of a little bit more resolution and slightly faster continuous shooting. But is it enough to take the pole position as the ultimate compact ten megapixel DSLR? That's harder to say, image quality-wise it's a dead heat with the EOS 400D (except at high sensitivities); it's quicker and more comfortable to use, but very slightly less featured, especially if you consider lens compatibility. It would be hard to recommend one over the other and the answer would depend solely on your preferences (I'm calling it a draw).

Read the full review here (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/).

kwajo.com

Jul 21, 2007, 08:00 AM

Decide if you want Canon or Nikon lenses.

Or Pentax, or Olympus, or Sony, or Leica, et cetera. et cetera....

Don't leave out other systems, Nikon/Canon don't rule the world

M@lew

Jul 21, 2007, 08:18 AM

Or Pentax, or Olympus, or Sony, or Leica, et cetera. et cetera....

Don't leave out other systems, Nikon/Canon don't rule the world

Yeah but he asked about the D40 or Rebel XT. That's Nikon or Canon.

OreoCookie

Jul 21, 2007, 03:20 PM

Decide if you want Canon or Nikon lenses.
No. Decide which camera body feels better in your hand and which user interface you prefer.

OreoCookie

Jul 21, 2007, 03:23 PM

Yeah but he asked about the D40 or Rebel XT. That's Nikon or Canon.
Giving alternatives is never a bad thing.
(And that's coming from a Nikonian ;))

iBookG4user

Jul 21, 2007, 03:35 PM

Giving alternatives is never a bad thing.
(And that's coming from a Nikonian ;))

Yeah, but I already looked at the other dSLRs in my price range and I narrowed it down to either the Canon Digital Rebel XT or the Nikon D40.

OreoCookie

Jul 21, 2007, 04:01 PM

Yeah, but I already looked at the other dSLRs in my price range and I narrowed it down to either the Canon Digital Rebel XT or the Nikon D40.
Good :)
I think the only advice I can give you is to try out both of them, hold them in your hands and see which one feels more natural. Reading reviews won't help anymore as both cameras are good.

Personally, I strongly dislike Canon's UI which is the sole reason I would never buy one. I've held the D40X in my hands and I really liked it. It can do 90-95 % of what the D80 can do (with the exception of lens compatibility) at a much lower price point. If the D40's viewfinder were bigger, I probably couldn't have justified the expense of a D80.

failsafe1

Jul 21, 2007, 04:10 PM

I have found that at the same level of features, and price it comes down to what you like for feel and handling. The optics on both cameras will be great. You can look at resolution tests over at a site like dpreview if you would feel better. Someone mentioned going to a camera store and trying both out. That is the only way to go.

terriyaki

Jul 21, 2007, 04:46 PM

No. Decide which camera body feels better in your hand and which user interface you prefer.

I agree with this to an extent. However, if someone is really going to be serious about photography they have to realize that they're buying into a lens system. Glass outlasts bodies. I'd make my choice based on a lens system first and foremost and then look at the other things like user interface next.

OreoCookie

Jul 21, 2007, 04:57 PM

I agree with this to an extent. However, if someone is really going to be serious about photography they have to realize that they're buying into a lens system. Glass outlasts bodies. I'd make my choice based on a lens system first and foremost and then look at the other things like user interface next.
The differences between professional lenses are subtle and much smaller than most people think, it's much more important that you make `the shot'. If you dislike the way the camera body feels in your hand, you'll probably not make the shot. Don't forget that we're talking about entry-level cameras here: the investment (compared to professional lenses) is minimal. Even if the OP invests money into lenses, he'll probably not tie himself down to a particular system as lenses don't lose a lot of value.

iBookG4user

Jul 22, 2007, 10:05 PM

shecky

Jul 22, 2007, 10:52 PM

I'm going to major in Graphic Design, but I've always had an interest in photography, so I thought it would make a great minor.

i agree as well; graphic design and photo are very, very closely related to each other; almost every good graphic designer i know if fluent in photography.

just out of curiosity, what schools are you looking at? i may have some advice in this regard (i teach graphic design + do a lot of photo work.)

i also think you should not be too quick to ignore wet photography; i use as much film stuff as i do digital stuff in my GD work. also (i think this was mentioned before?) if you get a 35mm canon body used that takes the same glass as your digital its almost no additional cost (have to check the mounts, etc.) - here is an EOS 620 (http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=CE020104005950&brandcategoryname=35MM&Mode=&item=0&ActivateTOC2=&ID=10&BC=CE&BCC=1&CC=2&CCC=1&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=) body at KEH in great condition for $69.

creator2456

Jul 22, 2007, 10:55 PM

After doing quite a bit more research I decided that once I get my paycheck, I'll be buying a new Canon Digital Rebel XTi. I found a great deal, although it's slightly out of my price range, I can manage to get enough for it. Thanks for everyone's help :). I'm sure I'll have some more questions for you once I get the camera. :p

Congrats on finalizing the choice.

I went a little overboard with my decision (K10D I think, but I am not disappointed one bit. I went with the Pentax mainly because I have a Pentax SP II 35mm that I use and with a $30 adapter I can use all my 'old' M42 lenses with the K10. I chose the K10 partially because B&H had a great kit deal going and because of the numerous reviews that I read.

By no means will my purchase of the K10D stop me from shooting with my SP II. I love the results from it and there is something special about actually working the darkroom and controlling what happens instead of dragging a few sliders. Also, no matter what the megapixel count is on a camera, film will always beat out digital for large prints.

One thing to check when you get your camera will be its firmware. When I did my camera had ver. 1.0 while the newest was ver. 1.3.

iBookG4user

Jul 22, 2007, 11:06 PM

i agree as well; graphic design and photo are very, very closely related to each other; almost every good graphic designer i know if fluent in photography.

just out of curiosity, what schools are you looking at? i may have some advice in this regard (i teach graphic design + do a lot of photo work.)

i also think you should not be too quick to ignore wet photography; i use as much film stuff as i do digital stuff in my GD work. also (i think this was mentioned before?) if you get a 35mm canon body used that takes the same glass as your digital its almost no additional cost (have to check the mounts, etc.) - here is an EOS 620 (http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=CE020104005950&brandcategoryname=35MM&Mode=&item=0&ActivateTOC2=&ID=10&BC=CE&BCC=1&CC=2&CCC=1&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=) body at KEH in mint condition for $69.

I'm going to visit the Massachusetts College of Art and The Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University in August. I'm also going to be looking at schools in northern California in the next few days to see what good ones they have up there. And I might consider getting a film SLR, but right now I will only have enough for the Canon Digital Rebel XTi, it's going to take up all of my paycheck and spending money.

shecky

Jul 22, 2007, 11:28 PM

MassArt + AIB are worth a visit. you should look at RISD while you are in the neighborhood as well as Yale, which is not unreasonably far away. i know Northeastern has graphic design but i do not think they have photo.

in NoCal you should check out CCA and UC Berkley, i would avoid the art institute. in SoCal CalArts is a great school you should check out and possibly Art Center.

Digital Skunk

Jul 23, 2007, 12:13 AM

Canon, all the way. Here are two of the main reasons:

**disclaimer: I have zero brand loyalty, and simply use the best tools for the job. I would switch to Nikon, or whatever else tomorrow if it were better.**

1. Noise performance. Canon absolutely destroys Nikon here. ISO 1600 images from Canon are comparable to ISO 400 images from Canon. Also, the noise in a Canon is monochromatic, Nikons is RGB.

2. Lens Selection. In choosing your body, you are in effect choosing your lens options. You probably won't be throwing down for a bag full of L glass right now, but Canon's lens selection is the most robust.

For those above talking about Canon lens mounts, here is a shot of my 85 f/1.2L, which is a pretty new lens, on a almost ten year old Rebel Film body. I'd actually love to take this combo out with some 3200 ISO or IR film.

http://mnjordan.com/images/misc/mr/filmbody.jpg

(1) The truth but far fetched. I take images with my Nikon D2zs at ISO 1600 and they look like images taken at ISO 400 with virtually no noise. Some photographers just can't shoot. Besides.. the only sensors that Canon has that are worlds better than the Nikon ones are the 1D series. The noise performance on the lower end bodies is better than Nikon's on certain cameras but it does not destroy it depending on how good you shoot.

(2) The lens selection for either system is debatable. Canon offers a lot of glass that overlaps each other... (16-35, 10-22, 17-40, 20-35) and their performance varies too much from lens to lens. this is do to the fact that Canon is the only camera company to have three different sensor types and they have to make lenses that utilize all of them. Most photogs have to either carry the same camera with it's particular type of sensor or carry two lenses that have slightly different focal lengths to reduce the chances of vignetting. And Canon doesn't have an 85mm 1.4 which many concert photogs that shoot Nikon have sworn by.

No matter how far back you go... any Nikon lens will fit on any Nikon camera (sans the DX series) I can grab a 50 year old 50mm and strap it on the front of my D200 and meter with it. No other camera company can do that.

Don't leave out flash systems either. Canon took a very important feature off their flashs a few years ago and many pros in the field have switched to Metz flashes to use on their Canons.

Each system has it's pros and cons, Canon is by no means the best. If you want to use the best, you'll have to pick what you are looking for in a system that is important to you. Image quality might be Canon, but performance and consistency is lacking.

creator2456

Jul 23, 2007, 12:15 AM

shecky:.

I just want to get a feel for what people think about the program I'm in, so what do you know about UICs (University of Illinois at Chicago) GD program compared to others.

Thanks
.:Hijack over

shecky

Jul 23, 2007, 09:07 AM

never heard of it as far as GD goes so not sure. i can say that its not a Tier A program, but then again, most programs are not.

Maclomaniac

Jul 23, 2007, 11:56 AM

This may be a little late in the discussion, but I would highly encourage you to take a film photography class and learn how to become proficient on the mechanics and technical aspects of photography using film rather than digital. It is easy to switch to digital later, but very difficult to go back and learn film once you're used to using a digital and checking your exposures instantly, taking a tons of shots rather than making yourself use the correct settings to get it right in much fewer shots. It forces you to become a much better technical photographer, which will only benefit your long-term skills as a designer and photographer.

kwajo.com

Jul 23, 2007, 01:59 PM

No matter how far back you go... any Nikon lens will fit on any Nikon camera (sans the DX series) I can grab a 50 year old 50mm and strap it on the front of my D200 and meter with it. No other camera company can do that.

That's not true, Pentax can as well.

Mike Teezie

Jul 23, 2007, 02:30 PM

(1) The truth but far fetched. I take images with my Nikon D2zs at ISO 1600 and they look like images taken at ISO 400 with virtually no noise. Some photographers just can't shoot. Besides.. the only sensors that Canon has that are worlds better than the Nikon ones are the 1D series. The noise performance on the lower end bodies is better than Nikon's on certain cameras but it does not destroy it depending on how good you shoot.

Noise performance has nothing to do with how well you shoot. If you are talking about underexposing every image, then fixing it later, that's something else. Your images at ISO 1600 may look like your images at ISO 400, I don't know. I do know, however, that Nikon's ISO 400 performance is unacceptable when compared to Canon's.

Where's Nikon's full frame option? They don't offer one, which is a deal killer right from the start for me. And I'd put a 5D against a D2x any day of the week. Of all the Canon pros I talk to and hang out with, every single one prefers the files that come from their 5D's to their 1Ds MKIIs. They say the camera feels like garbage compared to the 1Ds, but the files are better. So, I ultimately chose the 5D's over the 1D's.

(2) The lens selection for either system is debatable. Canon offers a lot of glass that overlaps each other... (16-35, 10-22, 17-40, 20-35) and their performance varies too much from lens to lens. this is do to the fact that Canon is the only camera company to have three different sensor types and they have to make lenses that utilize all of them. Most photogs have to either carry the same camera with it's particular type of sensor or carry two lenses that have slightly different focal lengths to reduce the chances of vignetting. And Canon doesn't have an 85mm 1.4 which many concert photogs that shoot Nikon have sworn by.

All of Canon's lenses will work on any of their cameras except for the EF-S series. It's only a handful of lenses to begin with, and in reality only features one attractive lens - the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

You are right, Canon doesn't have an 85 1.4. They offer a 85 1.8, and an 85 1.2. I fail to see how more choice equals less than. If you want 85 1.4, buy an 85 1.2 and stop it down.

No matter how far back you go... any Nikon lens will fit on any Nikon camera (sans the DX series) I can grab a 50 year old 50mm and strap it on the front of my D200 and meter with it. No other camera company can do that.

Sure. Autofocus wouldn't work, but you could mount it. But what's the draw in that to someone who is just starting the build a camera/lens system?

Don't leave out flash systems either. Canon took a very important feature off their flashs a few years ago and many pros in the field have switched to Metz flashes to use on their Canons.

What feature was that?

I'm not saying you aren't right, but I will say that of every single pro photographer I hang with, every single one shoots Canon, and every single one shoots with 580Ex flashes, myself included. I have never seen a Metz flash mounted to a Canon body at all the photographer's events I attend.

Each system has it's pros and cons, Canon is by no means the best. If you want to use the best, you'll have to pick what you are looking for in a system that is important to you. Image quality might be Canon, but performance and consistency is lacking.

Isn't image quality paramount? I don't understand what you mean when you say performance and consistency. My cameras perform consistently each and every time I pick them up, which is 4-5 days a week. I will say that Canon shutter life is crap. This is an area I wish they would address, and I've complained to the people at Canon Pro Service.

What everyone needs to understand is, we're all talking about the most intricate details of camera systems. To someone just starting out, these details won't be nearly as important - the focus:D will/should be on making great images. The only reason to debate this stuff is because it's fun if you're a gear nerd like me, and it's good to be able to make an informed decision for your purchase.

creator2456

Jul 23, 2007, 02:30 PM

That's not true, Pentax can as well.

You beat me to it. That is a big reason I stuck with a Pentax dSLR...didn't want my lenses to just sit there half the time.

Digital Skunk

Jul 23, 2007, 08:41 PM

Noise performance has nothing to do with how well you shoot. If you are talking about underexposing every image, then fixing it later, that's something else. Your images at ISO 1600 may look like your images at ISO 400, I don't know. I do know, however, that Nikon's ISO 400 performance is unacceptable when compared to Canon's.

Where's Nikon's full frame option? They don't offer one, which is a deal killer right from the start for me. And I'd put a 5D against a D2x any day of the week. Of all the Canon pros I talk to and hang out with, every single one prefers the files that come from their 5D's to their 1Ds MKIIs. They say the camera feels like garbage compared to the 1Ds, but the files are better. So, I ultimately chose the 5D's over the 1D's.

All of Canon's lenses will work on any of their cameras except for the EF-S series. It's only a handful of lenses to begin with, and in reality only features one attractive lens - the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

You are right, Canon doesn't have an 85 1.4. They offer a 85 1.8, and an 85 1.2. I fail to see how more choice equals less than. If you want 85 1.4, buy an 85 1.2 and stop it down.

Sure. Autofocus wouldn't work, but you could mount it. But what's the draw in that to someone who is just starting the build a camera/lens system?

What feature was that?

I'm not saying you aren't right, but I will say that of every single pro photographer I hang with, every single one shoots Canon, and every single one shoots with 580Ex flashes, myself included. I have never seen a Metz flash mounted to a Canon body at all the photographer's events I attend.

Isn't image quality paramount? I don't understand what you mean when you say performance and consistency. My cameras perform consistently each and every time I pick them up, which is 4-5 days a week. I will say that Canon shutter life is crap. This is an area I wish they would address, and I've complained to the people at Canon Pro Service.

What everyone needs to understand is, we're all talking about the most intricate details of camera systems. To someone just starting out, these details won't be nearly as important - the focus:D will/should be on making great images. The only reason to debate this stuff is because it's fun if you're a gear nerd like me, and it's good to be able to make an informed decision for your purchase.

Sorry... I wrote the post a little too fast.

The feature Canon was missing on their flashes was the PC Sync.

The Mark III has some of the best IQ on the market, but the AF is horrible, it's worse than the Mark II, lack of consistency.

The different size sensors across the line up is a bit of a nuisance. I can't use certain lenses on my 1Ds on my 30D and vice versa, albeit affording a 1Ds means that one can buy any lens they want in most cases.

I do love the Mark III feature list sans a few of the cute non-essential stuff. The resolution and IQ and speed are simply amazing and I am waiting to pull the trigger on my Nikon gear if the D3 isn't up to par with what I need, which is exactly what the Mark III offers. I can afford to wait since I don't shoot stills as much as I do video. But the AF was very disappointing. If I could justify the $25,000 for a Hasselblad that would be it, but that is the cost of the entire small format digital system.

As for noise... I agree, but the images I edit from my D2xs and the newspaper staff's D2xs just don't coincide with the general consensus that Nikon's have bad noise reduction. It does get terrible in certain circumstances, were the ISO is high and the shutter speed is low (i.e. low light fast action) but in every other situation, especially where good technique is used the noise has been little to none.

The audience isn't looking for any particulars that we eggheads have mentioned, you are right, I just don't want us to send him running for Nikon or Canon or Pentax based on personal opinion. When I used to work for Ritz the associates would sell any sucker the most expensive camera based on the associates personal preference and it was just disgusting. :mad: Glad I don't work there anymore.

sjl

Jul 23, 2007, 09:26 PM

The feature Canon was missing on their flashes was the PC Sync.

General comment: how many people are likely to want PC Sync? Remember that if you have a 580EX (or 530EX, or even a MR-14EX or MT-24EX), you can use wireless syncing between the flashes - granted that it's not always an option, but it wouldn't surprise me if that covers most of the need.

I'm not saying that it's not useful, just questioning whether it's really as essential as you seem to be making it out to be.

The Mark III has some of the best IQ on the market, but the AF is horrible, it's worse than the Mark II, lack of consistency.

Indeed, this is generally acknowledged. I suspect Canon is desperately trying to fix it with firmware; if they have to do a hardware rev to sort out the problem, it'll cost them, big time. But it's important to remember that this is the 1D mk 3, which is well outside the price range for the OP; the problems besetting the 1D mk 3 do not affect (to the best of my knowledge) the other bodies in Canon's lineup.

The different size sensors across the line up is a bit of a nuisance. I can't use certain lenses on my 1Ds on my 30D and vice versa, albeit affording a 1Ds means that one can buy any lens they want in most cases.

Any lens you can use on the 1Ds, you can use on the 30D. The field of view changes, yes, but you can deal with that. eg: I'd be very happy to get a 5D and 30D, with the 17-55mm f/2.8 on the 30D and the 70-200mm f/2.8 on the 5D. Or the 70-200mm f/2.8 on the 5D, and the 100-400mm on the 30D if I'm going to be shooting wildlife. Or 17-55mm on the 30D and the 17-40mm (or 16-35mm) on the 5D ... just to give a few examples of how I might pick my kit if I had two sensor sizes in my arsenal. If I were shooting primes, I might pick up a 50mm lens, a 135mm lens, and a 24mm lens, taking advantage of the crop factors to fill in the gaps at 85mm and 35mm.

Different sensor sizes mean that you have the flexibility to pick and choose according to your needs. If you don't want to deal with different sensor sizes, you can always pick your cameras accordingly - the 5D is a superb camera for the price, and would complement the 1Ds very nicely as a backup body.

The audience isn't looking for any particulars that we eggheads have mentioned, you are right, I just don't want us to send him running for Nikon or Canon or Pentax based on personal opinion. When I used to work for Ritz the associates would sell any sucker the most expensive camera based on the associates personal preference and it was just disgusting. :mad: Glad I don't work there anymore.

Nikon and Canon are the safe choices; they have over 90% of the DSLR market between them. For somebody to suggest Pentax or Olympus (or, heaven forbid, Sony - yes, I have a bias against Sony as a company, and freely admit it; I cannot comment on the quality of their kit), they need to have a reasonable knowledge of the gear lineup and whether or not it's appropriate for the current and likely future needs of the would-be purchaser. So I think it's fair to say that the perception of pro-Nikon/Canon bias in these forums is rooted in the dominance of these two companies in the market: it's what most people shoot, so it's what most people are familiar with, so it's what most people will suggest. I would not, however, suggest a 5D to somebody just starting out in photography; I'd nudge them towards the 400D or 30D, depending on how serious I thought them to be. Strong knowledge of a given brand does not necessarily equate to overselling; I'd argue, in fact, that a lack of knowledge is more likely to be correlated with overselling.

Just my two cents.

OreoCookie

Jul 23, 2007, 11:42 PM

compuwar

Jul 24, 2007, 01:04 AM

Digital Skunk

Jul 24, 2007, 10:07 AM

General comment: how many people are likely to want PC Sync? Remember that if you have a 580EX (or 530EX, or even a MR-14EX or MT-24EX), you can use wireless syncing between the flashes - granted that it's not always an option, but it wouldn't surprise me if that covers most of the need.

Indeed, this is generally acknowledged. I suspect Canon is desperately trying to fix it with firmware; if they have to do a hardware rev to sort out the problem, it'll cost them, big time. But it's important to remember that this is the 1D mk 3, which is well outside the price range for the OP; the problems besetting the 1D mk 3 do not affect (to the best of my knowledge) the other bodies in Canon's lineup.

Different sensor sizes mean that you have the flexibility to pick and choose according to your needs. If you don't want to deal with different sensor sizes, you can always pick your cameras accordingly - the 5D is a superb camera for the price, and would complement the 1Ds very nicely as a backup body.

Nikon and Canon are the safe choices; they have over 90% of the DSLR market between them. For somebody to suggest Pentax or Olympus (or, heaven forbid, Sony - yes, I have a bias against Sony as a company, and freely admit it; I cannot comment on the quality of their kit), they need to have a reasonable knowledge of the gear lineup and whether or not it's appropriate for the current and likely future needs of the would-be purchaser. So I think it's fair to say that the perception of pro-Nikon/Canon bias in these forums is rooted in the dominance of these two companies in the market: it's what most people shoot, so it's what most people are familiar with, so it's what most people will suggest. I would not, however, suggest a 5D to somebody just starting out in photography; I'd nudge them towards the 400D or 30D, depending on how serious I thought them to be. Strong knowledge of a given brand does not necessarily equate to overselling; I'd argue, in fact, that a lack of knowledge is more likely to be correlated with overselling.

Just my two cents.

I see where this is going. It's not bad but we are going to continue to agree on the main topics and disagree with the technicalities. Thank for being civil though... seriously it's hard to find courteous people on a lot of forums these days.

But the PC Sync has to be used for many of the wireless remotes and if someone can't afford the wireless remotes at all they have to use the ugly sync cords. That's a bit overrate though since I am sure the OP won't be interested in that for a while.

I hope they do fix the Mark III. If the OP starts demanding more out of the camera then I am sure they will start to look into the higher end 5D and Mark III's for future use. The different size sensors in an annoyance in my opinion. I would like to see Canon use some of its R&D to create a cheap 1.3x sensor (like the one in the 1D Mark II and III) and put them into the 30D and Rebel. That would shake the camera industry up a bit.

Sony is still a good electronics company. What I don't like about them is that they bought Konica/Minolta and the amazing Maxxum 5D and 7D and regulated them to the consumer market. The Alpha is a good camera since it is just based off of the Minolta body, but where is the pro stuff that Minolta users have been begging for? I would sell anyone an Alpha if they had the Minolta glass. That's where the choice really rests, with the owners current glass and if they want to give up lenses and accessories that they may already have. But if someone is starting fresh, Nikon and Canon are the default, but don't sleep the smaller companies, Pentax is making some good strides albeit slowly, and Olympus still makes some of the smallest DSLR cameras on the market where their IQ is still on par with the two big brothers.

Mike Teezie

Jul 24, 2007, 12:12 PM

I don't understand why the FF fanboys (most of whom own Canons with a crop sensor) are all up in arms, what's the point of the argument? The OP isn't going to shell out 4k+ for new equipment, he's new to photography.

All interesting bodies use cropped sensor anyway, there is no advantage for either Canon or Nikon due to sensor size. Even if the OP buys a Canon body, the lens argument won't work either: most interesting lenses are designed for cropped sensors (in particular wide-angle zooms), he'd have to get new top-of-the-line lenses for his future FF camera.

Besides, FF sensors are overrated, it's what you do with your camera that counts. As are noise comparison charts, photos of bathroom tiles and bricks.

Just to get this off my chest, there is absolutely nothing more ridiculous to me than calling someone a fanboy because they prefer something. It's rampant on the internet these days, and not unlike Godwin's law in my opinion.

I prefer full frame, for many reasons. I've had several crop factor cameras, and you know what? I don't like them as much as the full frame cameras I bought to replace them. Being able to see what I'm shooting is "more interesting" to me than trying to compose an image looking through a viewfinder that is the size of a postage stamp. So is the more interesting depth of field. So is the fact my lenses behave like they are supposed to.

You state your opinion as if it's fact. There's no advantage to a full frame sensor? Of course there is, for me and countless other photogs. All the interesting lenses are EF-S? Tell that to my 85 1.2, and 35 1.4. Or my 70-200 f/2.8 IS for that matter. By the way, which will work on any EOS Canon camera ever made - cropped sensor, all the way back to the first EOS film bodies. It comes down to preference, which is not a real shocker.

Many, many, many Canon pros shoot with this lens (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-85mm-Telephoto-Lens-Cameras/dp/B00007GQLU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6373895-3843968?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1185291637&sr=8-1), or this one (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009XVCZ/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6373895-3843968?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1185292332&sr=8-1), and lately, this one (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6373895-3843968?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1185292386&sr=1-1). All of which are fantastic, and very affordable. You don't have to get L glass and a 5D right off. But I'd like to have the option in the future.

I don't shoot bathroom tiles or bricks, either. I make photos of people, for money. It's my job - and like I said before, I'll use the best tools for the job. I can use whatever I want, and the minute someone makes something more attractive, I will.

As a matter of fact, if the OP would like, I can post a section of image at 100% crop, taken at ISO 1600. Then someone with a Nikon camera can do the same thing. I only say this, because I spend a fair amount of time at ISO 1600 in dark churches - with absolutely no fear whatsoever of noise. And again, everyone I know uses the in camera noise reduction.

I've seen a couple of really cool forum members get banned over this debate, so let's keep it civil.

OreoCookie

Jul 24, 2007, 01:22 PM

]There's no advantage to a full frame sensor? Of course there is, for me and countless other photogs. All the interesting lenses are EF-S? Tell that to my 85 1.2, and 35 1.4. Or my 70-200 f/2.8 IS for that matter. By the way, which will work on any EOS Canon camera ever made - cropped sensor, all the way back to the first EOS film bodies. It comes down to preference, which is not a real shocker.
Slow down, that's not what I've said.
I said that for the OP the question of crop vs. FF is irrelevant and there is no advantage of FF sensors for him, unless he spends a lot more than what he wants to and should. I haven't made a blanket statement that FF sensors are non-sense. And with FF fanboys I was addressing people who take this debate far too seriously and way off topic.
I also haven't said that all interesting lenses are available only for crop sensors, but nowadays you can cover the whole range of focal lengths (or rather: viewing angles) with crop sensors. Starting from Sigma's 8 mm fisheye to all tele lenses, there is no wide-angle problem anymore like there used to be (the first digital pros were suffering from this, my cousin had to buy a fisheye for his D30 (not 30D) to have a `proper' very wide-angle lens). Sigma and Tokina have also pioneered to bring 50-135/150 lenses to market which cover the same focal lengths as 70/80-200 on film/FF sensors.

The same goes for viewfinder size, there has been a lot of progress. My last two dslrs' viewfinders (Olympus E-20, Nikon D80) are about the size of that of my last film slr's (Nikon F80). This was actually another argument against Canon and Olympus (with the exception of the E-1 and Canons that were too expensive) for me as I wear glasses and need a larger viewfinder. (I'm sure the next revision will change that somewhat.) What I'm saying is that the big manufacturers are working on this and I believe that these two shortcomings have in fact been overcome (at least on the Nikon side).

I don't want to enter into a discussion whether FF sensors really have all the benefits people claim they have, because as long as I have to spend about twice as much as I've invested into my whole setup just to buy the body and one lens, it's simply not an issue for me. So as long as Canon (or Nikon for that matter) doesn't release a FF sensor camera at the pricepoint of the 30D, I couldn't care less (my 80-200 zoom also works for FF cameras). But until then, I'm neither willing nor able to shell out this type of money for equipment.

The only thing that ticks me off is when people throw around words such as `unacceptable noise' or `bad image quality' or when they make it sound as if you can't take good pictures unless you have equipment abcd. The image quality of crop sensor dslrs is excellent, Canon's 30D and Nikon's D80 are testimony to that. I dare to say that all dslrs have excellent image quality that is more than sufficient 90 % of the time. People should start worrying again about taking good pictures instead worrying whether they have bought the right equipment.

Mike Teezie

Jul 24, 2007, 03:30 PM

The only thing that ticks me off is when people throw around words such as `unacceptable noise' or `bad image quality' or when they make it sound as if you can't take good pictures unless you have equipment abcd. The image quality of crop sensor dslrs is excellent, Canon's 30D and Nikon's D80 are testimony to that. I dare to say that all dslrs have excellent image quality that is more than sufficient 90 % of the time. People should start worrying again about taking good pictures instead worrying whether they have bought the right equipment.

I totally agree about image quality. Nikon's are great cameras, obviously. My perspective is honestly skewed, because this is how I make my living. The cost of the gear isn't a deciding factor, and will definitely be for anyone not shooting for money. That makes it a bit hard to relate.

That's why I tried to include the "who cares, get one and go" part of my earlier posts.

It's fun talking gear about though, isn't it?

:D

OreoCookie

Jul 24, 2007, 04:44 PM

I totally agree about image quality. Nikon's are great cameras, obviously. My perspective is honestly skewed, because this is how I make my living. The cost of the gear isn't a deciding factor, and will definitely be for anyone not shooting for money. That makes it a bit hard to relate.
Yeah, although I'm trying to argue independent of my preference. Trying ;) :)
I think most of my arguments hold for any of the big companies that bless us with new modern dslrs. My perspective is that of someone who tries to make the most out of his (limited) funds. I know that at least some pros (have to) do the same (my cousin is locked into the Canon system as he has invested a lot of money into (good) glass and he owns a lot of Sigma and Tokina lenses). Fortunate are those who can afford the equipment they really want. Since I really like third-party lenses (especially Tokina), the question of Canon vs. Nikon lenses is irrelevant for me.

Although to be honest, the camera I have now, does everything, really everything I want. Technology has really progressed compared to when I started taking pictures when I was 5. My first slr's AF (Nikon F50) was dreadfully slow by today's standards, Canon's 300V for instance was a huge step forward as it used a derivative of the AF module of its professional EOS 1V. The same goes for the first digital cameras, the whitebalance was usually off, noise is often clearly visible, even at low ISO settings such as ISO320 or ISO160. My previous dslr, an Olympus E-20, had visible noise, was slow to write pictures onto the memory card (and you couldn't access the menu in the meantime) and a noticeably smaller color range. But it was the first affordable dslr and cost me a third of a Nikon D70/Canon 300D (which had just been released back then) and was still a very good camera at that time. My current camera does about 3 fps and even after 40 pictures, the image buffer isn't exhausted. There is no point measuring the start-up time as I can start taking pictures practically right away: technological progress is awesome. If some pictures are bad, I have to blame myself :D

I think that the difference in quality between cameras from different manufacturers has become ever so small that IMHO most people don't have to pay attention to noise levels and whatnot anymore. Instead, they can buy their next camera purely on personal preference (size, glass, even design ;)).
It's fun talking gear about though, isn't it?

:D
It sure is! :D

epicwelshman

Jul 24, 2007, 04:53 PM

Honestly, I can't contribute anything worthwhile to this thread. However, I'd love to be one day be able to give opinions on high end gear based on actual use, rather than technical specs.

Whenever someone makes fun of my D40x (lack of focus motor, "newbie camera") I resort to the old mantra that the photographer makes the picture, not the camera. I feel I've produced some killer shots with my D40x (hell, even my Sony DSC-H1) that couldn't have been taken better if I had a D2Xs with a 17-55mm 2.8 strapped on.

OreoCookie

Jul 24, 2007, 05:41 PM

Whenever someone makes fun of my D40x (lack of focus motor, "newbie camera") I resort to the old mantra that the photographer makes the picture, not the camera. I feel I've produced some killer shots with my D40x (hell, even my Sony DSC-H1) that couldn't have been taken better if I had a D2Xs with a 17-55mm 2.8 strapped on.
I've seen lots of people with no skills and a D200/30D around their (usually sizeable) bellies. They buy L glass/high-quality Nikkors just because they can afford it and they want the best equipment.

What you say pretty much nails it: as long as you (the photographer) don't hit the limits of your camera, you will take pretty much the `same' picture with a better camera, the product will essentially be the same. Don't let those people discourage you from taking pictures. Of course, you might hit a limit of your camera one day or another, but even then, you don't necessarily have to change gear to take good pictures (especially if you can't afford it). And taking pictures should be fun! It doesn't matter if your weapon of choice is a Leica M, a Holga/Lomo, a 30-year-old Canon AE1 or a Nikon D40X :)

epicwelshman

Jul 24, 2007, 06:34 PM

I've seen lots of people with no skills and a D200/30D around their (usually sizeable) bellies. They buy L glass/high-quality Nikkors just because they can afford it and they want the best equipment.

What you say pretty much nails it: as long as you (the photographer) don't hit the limits of your camera, you will take pretty much the `same' picture with a better camera, the product will essentially be the same. Don't let those people discourage you from taking pictures. Of course, you might hit a limit of your camera one day or another, but even then, you don't necessarily have to change gear to take good pictures (especially if you can't afford it). And taking pictures should be fun! It doesn't matter if your weapon of choice is a Leica M, a Holga/Lomo, a 30-year-old Canon AE1 or a Nikon D40X :)

Oh, I agree completely. The limits of the camera would be what would make me upgrade. I wish the D40/x had Nikon CLS support for wireless flash, and the only thing I'd change in regard to the lack of the AF motor would be an AF-S 50mm 1.8... but that'll happen soon enough I'm sure!

OreoCookie

Jul 24, 2007, 07:18 PM

Oh, I agree completely. The limits of the camera would be what would make me upgrade. I wish the D40/x had Nikon CLS support for wireless flash, and the only thing I'd change in regard to the lack of the AF motor would be an AF-S 50mm 1.8... but that'll happen soon enough I'm sure!
Yeah, I agree. AF-S lenses are pretty nice since they allow what Canon-users know for years as `instant override': you don't have to flip a switch to correct your focus manually.

epicwelshman

Jul 24, 2007, 08:02 PM

Yeah, I agree. AF-S lenses are pretty nice since they allow what Canon-users know for years as `instant override': you don't have to flip a switch to correct your focus manually.

Haha, apart from my kit lens (18-55)... no M/A option for me... either either auto, or a switch to full manual... no override. I think the 55-200mm VR Nikkor is the same way. As far as I know, all other AF-S lenses have the "instant override".

OreoCookie

Jul 24, 2007, 08:17 PM

Haha, apart from my kit lens (18-55)... no M/A option for me... either either auto, or a switch to full manual... no override. I think the 55-200mm VR Nikkor is the same way. As far as I know, all other AF-S lenses have the "instant override".
My 18-70 lens does -- and it's probably the reason I'll keep it for now. If you can get the hands on the 18-70 lens, it'll be your bread-and-butter lens.

Abstract

Jul 24, 2007, 08:57 PM

Also, the noise in a Canon is monochromatic, Nikons is RGB.

I just want to say that what I quoted is also completely backwards. Canon noise is RGB. Nikons produce essentially no colour noise.

All the stuff you said about noise before the quote is also wrong until you talk about full frame DSLRs, but I think someone else has already beaten me to it. Using APS-C sized sensors, Canon is sliiightly better than Nikon, which is sliightly better than the others, but not enough to notice in print, or even on a computer screen unless you zoom in to 1:1. The 5D is the best camera, or at least it has the best image quality. Maybe 2nd best. I like the Fuji S5 Pro, which uses Nikon's F-mount.

If you're looking at the typical DSLR, then there is very little difference between a Canon and a Nikon, except the ergonomics. Lenses are comparable in labs and reviews and such, but shooting the same photo with a Canon and Nikon will produce a different photo, and so far, I enjoy what I'm getting out of my Nikon.

netdog

Jul 25, 2007, 03:17 AM

netdog

Jul 25, 2007, 03:24 AM

Digital Skunk

Jul 25, 2007, 10:36 AM

I say screw these Nikon and Canon fanboys. ;)

It's like GM and Ford arguing over whether the Corvette or the Mustang is the best road car made. :)

I say get a Leica with a piece of their 14-55mm 2.8 glass on it and see what contrast really is.

Amen! Hasselblad all the way. Or should i say medium format all the way. Then again... just give me the Red One Digital Cinematography camera and I will be happy :D
80432

80433

80434

All the stuff you said about noise before the quote is also wrong until you talk about full frame DSLRs, but I think someone else has already beaten me to it. Using APS-C sized sensors, Canon is sliiightly better than Nikon, which is sliightly better than the others, but not enough to notice in print, or even on a computer screen unless you zoom in to 1:1. The 5D is the best camera, or at least it has the best image quality. Maybe 2nd best. I like the Fuji S5 Pro, which uses Nikon's F-mount.

Noise? I don't see it. But... I will show you what I am talking about when I say what noise? This images (is one of the bad ones in a stack... I hate parties for the most part, but if I like my client I will shoot one for them) was taken with a Nikon... with a 10.2MP sensor at ISO1600, f3.5 and no flash. This is as bad as I think it will ever get right? There is noise, but how much? And please don't tell me that any Canon before the Mark III would have had no noise what so ever since that is just not true.

80437

Now I like Canon's stuff... and if I don't see a Mark III stomping D3, or if it has too many disappointments then I might jump ship, but there is no such thing as 'the best' camera company. In my opinion... Pentax has had more innovation with their K10D battery grip than Nikon or Canon combined. :D

p.s. I agree... the Fuji S5 has the best of both worlds... Nikon body w/F-mount and the Fuji sensor, by far the best I have seen at the price range.

compuwar

Jul 25, 2007, 10:44 AM

The 5D is the best camera, or at least it has the best image quality. Maybe 2nd best. I like the Fuji S5 Pro, which uses Nikon's F-mount.

While I much prefer the IQ of a 4x5 back or one of the MF digitals to the 5D, the S5Pro is indeed a force. If I were shooting weddings, I'd be seriously looking at the S5 because of the dynamic range difference for shooting folks in black and white in challenging light.

Here's DPR's take on the min and max *usable* DR
S5Pro: 9.3-11.8 EV
5D: 7.3-8.3 EV

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/page18.asp

Scroll down to "Dynamic Range Compared" and check out the step wedge. Talk about additional shadow and highlight detail!

Better Light claims up to 12 stops in a single pass. I'm not sure where the newest 'blad figures, but with an ROI at under 6 weddings, I'd sure have an H3D-31 as my primary camera and a couple of S5s as alternate bodies. 43mm, now THAT's full-frame.

compuwar

Jul 25, 2007, 12:30 PM

I do know, however, that Nikon's ISO 400 performance is unacceptable when compared to Canon's.

As a matter of fact, if the OP would like, I can post a section of image at 100% crop, taken at ISO 1600. Then someone with a Nikon camera can do the same thing. I only say this, because I spend a fair amount of time at ISO 1600 in dark churches - with absolutely no fear whatsoever of noise. And again, everyone I know uses the in camera noise reduction.

Funny how you've gone from ISO 400 being "unacceptable" to wanting to pixel peep two stops further down the line. However, here's a thread at DPR of shots from a Nikon body (D2H) at 1600 and 3200, care to point out what exactly is "unacceptable" about them, since they're clearly well over ISO 400?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=24039551&changemode=1

FWIW, I've never printed anything large enough that a 100% crop was representative of the print at a viewing distance the same as from my screen to my eyes, but I imagine I'd need to go to several feet's worth of output to get there. But then I never thought 25x of magnification on film grain affected my prints either.