Need advice on new camera

[Patriks7]

Hey guys. After a couple years with my Casio point and shoot, I have decided to step my game up a bit and go for either a DSLR or a super-zoom. But after going through a couple review sites, I am OVERWHELMED by the choice of cameras and lenses. So I am hoping someone here could help me answer the following questions and get me some advice on which direction to go.

First, I have only used a DSLR and a super-zoom in a store. Not really any "real-world" experience. I am also a hobby photographer, and I am not planning into go into anything professional.

So what exactly is the difference between a DSLR and a super-zoom? From what I understand, the super-zoom has a fixed lens, which should be "OK" in most cases. Is that right?

Can anyone explain to me exactly what the differences between lenses are? Because the number I found is really overwhelming and I was not able to figure out the differences and uses.

So what I plan to shoot: practically, everything. From friends/family to sports to animals to architecture. Any advice on what would fit me better? DSLR or super-zoom?

I am planning on staying in a 1000 Euro budget AT MOST, so I want something that will fit my needs above. I have currently been looking at some Canon's, Nikon's and Sony's, as I heard they tend to be a better choice for beginners. After looking at some models, with my limited knowledge, I am going more towards Canon, mainly due to their super-zoom being superior according to many reviews (SX1 and SX10) and their DSLRs have many more lenses from what I saw.

So, guys, please help a lost noobie!

P.S. - please don't make this into a Canon vs Nikon vs Sony vs .... thread, that is not my objective.

[miles01110]

So what exactly is the difference between a DSLR and a super-zoom? From what I understand, the super-zoom has a fixed lens, which should be "OK" in most cases. Is that right?

Pretty much. The main thing you get with a DSLR in addition to being able to switch lenses is a physically larger sensor, which almost always translates to better IQ.

Can anyone explain to me exactly what the differences between lenses are? Because the number I found is really overwhelming and I was not able to figure out the differences and uses.

Lenses are divided into 3 categories; Wide angle, telephoto, and those in the middle. That's about as much as I can tell you without knowing specifics like brand or desired focal length.

So what I plan to shoot: practically, everything. From friends/family to sports to animals to architecture. Any advice on what would fit me better? DSLR or super-zoom?

super-zoom if IQ isn't a huge factor to you.

I am planning on staying in a 1000 Euro budget AT MOST, so I want something that will fit my needs above. I have currently been looking at some Canon's, Nikon's and Sony's, as I heard they tend to be a better choice for beginners. After looking at some models, with my limited knowledge, I am going more towards Canon, mainly due to their super-zoom being superior according to many reviews (SX1 and SX10) and their DSLRs have many more lenses from what I saw.


Canon and Nikon dominate aftermarket sales due to their huge variety of lenses and accessories. If you were going to get a DSLR I'd stick with Canon or Nikon.

[cube]

A superzoom uses a small sensor, so there's a big difference in image quality with a DSLR, specially in low light.

I don't see which DSLR maker would not make good cameras for beginners. Pentax and Olympus, for example, make great entry-level cameras as well.

[netdog]

If you are serious about making a long term commitment to DSLR photography, wait until you can afford a full frame DSLR. The Nikon D700 is a great deal, and the prices to enter full frame will continue to fall rapidly. When they get to a point that you can afford, jump in.

If you are serious about photography, your main investment is going to be in glass over the years. If you buy an APC camera like the Canon Rebel, Nikon D90 etc., when you do go to full frame, you are going to want to sell all your glass as well. If you start with a full frame, over the years you may upgrade the body from time to time, but the glass that you buy starting now will continue to serve you well.

The D700 is a great DSLR, and if it is too rich for your blood, there will be another full frame soon that will be both better and much cheaper.

[cube]

The entry-level price for full frame does not fall rapidly. Don't wait hoping to be able to afford a new full frame DSLR.

(There are used full frame DSLRs under $1000, but they cannot be consided general-purpose cameras, because they are old and with sensor limitations).

[mcavjame]

If you are serious about photography, your main investment is going to be in glass over the years. If you buy an APC camera like the Canon Rebel, Nikon D90 etc., when you do go to full frame, you are going to want to sell all your glass as well. If you start with a full frame, over the years you may upgrade the body from time to time, but the glass that you buy starting now will continue to serve you well.


I agree that the lenses will be the major investment, but to suggest a full frame camera will add thousands to the initial investment.

Starting with an entry level dSLR doesn't mean you have to sell your lenses when you upgrade. I currently own the Canon XS (cheapest of Canon entry level) but I am only buying L series lenses (top of the line) so that I have the flexibility to get another consumer slr or go full frame. There is no way I would sell these off with an entry level SLR. I would pass on the kit lens only.

The benefit is that getting the best lenses maintain their value over time if I decide I don't need a particular focal range.

[jampat]

As you don't really know what you want, dropping a ton of money right now doesn't make a lot of sense. Your best bet may be to buy something relatively cheap (ie a used superzoom would work well for this) and use it for a while. Take note of what focal length you are using the most, what focal lengths are critical, which ones and which ones you can live without. Also pay attention to what you like and don't like about the camera. You may find that you take most of your pictures of kids playing soccer, so you are always using 200-300 mm focal length and the light isn't great so the superzoom is missing some shots (I don't know your situation so this is just an example). If you want better low light ability, DSLR is a good way to go and you know you need a 200-300 mm lens (preferably with decent light sensitivity (ie f4 or better). You could also buy a DSLR and pair of kit lenses within your budget, but those lenses aren't the best and you quite likely will want to upgrade and the market for used kit lenses is quite poor. If you had bought the used superzoom, you could probably turn it around with very little money lost and a lot of knowledge gained.

[mcavjame]

Keep in mind that a good superzoom and entry level dSLR will be close in price. The response and usefulness of the dSLR will far outperform the SZ. Shutter lag is my biggest beef with PS style cameras.

[miles01110]

I agree that the lenses will be the major investment, but to suggest a full frame camera will add thousands to the initial investment.

Starting with an entry level dSLR doesn't mean you have to sell your lenses when you upgrade. I currently own the Canon XS (cheapest of Canon entry level) but I am only buying L series lenses (top of the line) so that I have the flexibility to get another consumer slr or go full frame. There is no way I would sell these off with an entry level SLR. I would pass on the kit lens only.

The benefit is that getting the best lenses maintain their value over time if I decide I don't need a particular focal range.

...but going with your method also adds thousands, or at least double the price of the body, to the initial investment. Buying L-lenses for one's first DSLR, in my humble opinion, is overkill. The standard 18-55 IS on the XS and XSi is a perfectly fine beginner lens, and even if you resold it later on you'd probably only lose on the order of a few tens of dollars. Compare that to dropping a few hundred dollars on an L and not using it properly. Waste.

[luminosity]

I think Nikon has stated and confirmed their commitment to the DX lenses and sensor. It'll be around for awhile.

[Patriks7]

Pretty much. The main thing you get with a DSLR in addition to being able to switch lenses is a physically larger sensor, which almost always translates to better IQ.



Lenses are divided into 3 categories; Wide angle, telephoto, and those in the middle. That's about as much as I can tell you without knowing specifics like brand or desired focal length.



super-zoom if IQ isn't a huge factor to you.



Canon and Nikon dominate aftermarket sales due to their huge variety of lenses and accessories. If you were going to get a DSLR I'd stick with Canon or Nikon.

Thanks a lot for the reply! Some useful info for me.
Do you (or anyone for that matter) have a good site with reviews for both DSLRs with lenses where I could also price them up? (preferably European)

If you are serious about making a long term commitment to DSLR photography, wait until you can afford a full frame DSLR. The Nikon D700 is a great deal, and the prices to enter full frame will continue to fall rapidly. When they get to a point that you can afford, jump in.

If you are serious about photography, your main investment is going to be in glass over the years. If you buy an APC camera like the Canon Rebel, Nikon D90 etc., when you do go to full frame, you are going to want to sell all your glass as well. If you start with a full frame, over the years you may upgrade the body from time to time, but the glass that you buy starting now will continue to serve you well.

The D700 is a great DSLR, and if it is too rich for your blood, there will be another full frame soon that will be both better and much cheaper.

Thanks, but if you would have read my post, this is as a hobby and not anything really serious. I travel quite a bit and want to bring back some nice pictures, which always suck with a point and shoot. So a full-frame is firstly out of my price range but also really unnecessary.

As you don't really know what you want, dropping a ton of money right now doesn't make a lot of sense. Your best bet may be to buy something relatively cheap (ie a used superzoom would work well for this) and use it for a while. Take note of what focal length you are using the most, what focal lengths are critical, which ones and which ones you can live without. Also pay attention to what you like and don't like about the camera. You may find that you take most of your pictures of kids playing soccer, so you are always using 200-300 mm focal length and the light isn't great so the superzoom is missing some shots (I don't know your situation so this is just an example). If you want better low light ability, DSLR is a good way to go and you know you need a 200-300 mm lens (preferably with decent light sensitivity (ie f4 or better). You could also buy a DSLR and pair of kit lenses within your budget, but those lenses aren't the best and you quite likely will want to upgrade and the market for used kit lenses is quite poor. If you had bought the used superzoom, you could probably turn it around with very little money lost and a lot of knowledge gained.

Well I'm a student, so its not likely I'll be taking pictures of kids (at least not mine :p) playing soccer. But I'm really considering your idea to buy a super-zoom for now, find out how everything works and with time maybe move on to a DSLR.

[mcavjame]

...but going with your method also adds thousands, or at least double the price of the body, to the initial investment. Buying L-lenses for one's first DSLR, in my humble opinion, is overkill. The standard 18-55 IS on the XS and XSi is a perfectly fine beginner lens, and even if you resold it later on you'd probably only lose on the order of a few tens of dollars. Compare that to dropping a few hundred dollars on an L and not using it properly. Waste.

I agree. A dSLR with a kit lens is the way to go.

My point was, if you happen to buy additional lenses, they don't have to go with your starter camera. They can be an investment into your hobby when you decide to upgrade in the future.

Most lenses I purchase are used because there are a wealth of EF and AF lenses to choose from in the Canon community. I just tend to avoid the EF-S lenses so that I have the option to go full frame if I want to.

[Patriks7]

I agree. A dSLR with a kit lens is the way to go.

My point was, if you happen to buy additional lenses, they don't have to go with your starter camera. They can be an investment into your hobby when you decide to upgrade in the future.

Most lenses I purchase are used because there are a wealth of EF and AF lenses to choose from in the Canon community. I just tend to avoid the EF-S lenses so that I have the option to go full frame if I want to.

That actually makes sense.
I just want to know, how important is image stabilization? It seems to be on the higher end lenses only and the only body with it I've seen so far is Sony. So is it just not a useful feature with DSLRs?

[mcavjame]

That actually makes sense.
I just want to know, how important is image stabilization? It seems to be on the higher end lenses only and the only body with it I've seen so far is Sony. So is it just not a useful feature with DSLRs?

IS is only good if you're a shaky photographer. What it does is allow for up to 2 f-stops of compensation when the shutter slows for lower light situations.

It has no benefit for compensating subject movement. So if your subject moves in low light, it will be blurry.

[indiecraig]

My suggestion is to go for a consumer level DX format DSLR from Canon or Nikon. With a superzoom you are pretty much stuck with what you started with, whereas with a DSLR you can buy new glass, flashes, filters, battery grips etc.

For example, once you have gotten to grips with the kit lens and started using the manual settings you could get a nice prime lens. These have really wide apertures and are great for taking photos in low light. They also allow you to be a lot more creative by reducing the depth of field, blurring out the background and focusing attention on the subject.

You can also get remote flashes, which you can place anywhere, giving amazing effects which just aren't possible with a fixed flash. Polarizing filters allow you to remove reflections, for example on water or glass, and can also make the sky much bluer, making landscapes all the more beautiful.

There is just so much you can do with a DSLR, but if you want to just take photos, stick it in auto mode. They aren't much larger than bridge cameras either.

[Patriks7]

My suggestion is to go for a consumer level DX format DSLR from Canon or Nikon. With a superzoom you are pretty much stuck with what you started with, whereas with a DSLR you can buy new glass, flashes, filters, battery grips etc.

For example, once you have gotten to grips with the kit lens and started using the manual settings you could get a nice prime lens. These have really wide apertures and are great for taking photos in low light. They also allow you to be a lot more creative by reducing the depth of field, blurring out the background and focusing attention on the subject.

You can also get remote flashes, which you can place anywhere, giving amazing effects which just aren't possible with a fixed flash. Polarizing filters allow you to remove reflections, for example on water or glass, and can also make the sky much bluer, making landscapes all the more beautiful.

There is just so much you can do with a DSLR, but if you want to just take photos, stick it in auto mode. They aren't much larger than bridge cameras either.

Thanks a lot for your reply! Do you have any particular models you could suggest? I have currently looked at the Canon XS,XSi and T1i (I think those are supposed to be the low end) as well as the Nikon D40, D40x and D60 (same) and I really can't find a decision which would be the better to start out with.
Also, how is Olympus? Their E420/E520 both seem quite good (and pretty well priced) as do their lenses.

[indiecraig]

I have a Nikon D40 (now replaced by the D60) and am very happy with it, but there have been advances in the last couple of years, such as live view and HD video recording which you may be interested in, as they "fill the gaps" between DSLRs and bridge cameras/superzooms. Live view allows you to frame a shot on the screen, whereas with the D40 or D60 you must use the viewfinder. This doesn't bother me, I like the viewfinder, but it might be something to consider. HD video recording might interest you also, as you would be able to get some really nice effects as you expand your equipment. These features are available on the Nikon D90 and D5000 (D5000 has a swiveling screen!) and the Canon 500D. They do add a bit of cost, so if these features don't interest you, by all means go with a D60 or Canon equivalent, such as the 1000D or 450D.

So, basically, it depends what you want and how much you're willing to spend. If I were you I would stick with Canon or Nikon, as third party lens manufacturers such as Sigma, Tokina and Tamron have some of their lenses only available with a Canon or Nikon mount, so if you get a Olympus or Sony you are limiting your options. If you do some research on all the model numbers shown above, I'm sure you'll find something that suits your needs and is within your budget.

[toxic]

i suggest sticking to a superzoom, at least initially. if you don't like the results, that means you need an SLR, but at this point even you're not sure if you care about that kind of image quality.

[cube]

That actually makes sense.
I just want to know, how important is image stabilization? It seems to be on the higher end lenses only and the only body with it I've seen so far is Sony. So is it just not a useful feature with DSLRs?

Canon and Nikon only have IS in the lenses. You can find in-body IS in other brands, like Pentax and Olympus.

Look at the Pentax K200D. It's also weather-sealed, which is amazing for the price.

[indiecraig]

For the versatility to shoot sports, architecture, animals and people, in a variety of environments, a camera with interchangeable lenses is the way to go.

Sports: Telephoto lens with stabilisation. The larger sensor will also allow faster shutter speeds (freeze movement) at higher ISO levels with less noise. Lots of jargon there, but basically you will get much better photos.
Arcitecture: Wide angle lenses are invaluable for taking photos of large buildings.
Animals and people: These subjects tend to move (especially kids, as I have seen with my nephew), meaning that you will want fast shutter speeds to freeze movement. Problems arise in darker conditions, where long exposures are necessary to catch enough light. You can use flash to get around this, which gives a blown out effect, emphasises wrinkles and darkens backgrounds. With a DSLR you can get a fixed focal length wide aperture lens, which lets in a lot more light, allowing faster shutter speeds without the use of flash.

I guess it depends what you want to do with it, but if you want versatility, get a DSLR.

[indiecraig]

Canon and Nikon only have IS in the lenses. You can find in-body IS in other brands, like Pentax and Olympus.

Look at the Pentax K200D. It's also weather-sealed, which is amazing for the price.

True, but putting the IS in the body means you don't see the effect of it through the viewfinder. You see the image all shaky and have to hope that the stabilisation does its job. I like to know just how much shake I'm putting up with after stabilisation, not before.

It is advantageous to have every lens stabilised, but you only really need IS on your telephoto lens, as the amount of shake reduces with focal length, so you only need to buy it once. You can get IS on a few shorter lenses, but you probably wouldn't notice much difference.

[Patriks7]

OK so I started putting together a list of DSLRs and super-zooms. So which specs/features should I look for (what is most important)? After this I'll go to a store to try them all personally (if I'll find one over here...) and then decide, but I want to narrow it down to just, say, 4 cameras according to their specs.

[indiecraig]

Just wondering, when you say superzoom, what do you mean? Point and shoot cameras can have 10x zooms, which would class it as a superzoom. Then there's 'bridge cameras' which come somewhere in between a point and shoot and a DSLR and usually have a large zoom, so would also be classed as a superzoom. You can even get superzoom lenses for DSLRs, like the 18-200mm Nikkor lens I have. The term "superzoom" really describes the focal range of a camera, not the form factor.

When looking at specs, don't get blinded by high megapixel counts. It's the image quality that matters, not the numbers. You can find out about image quality and other things that matter by looking on sights like "Trusted Reviews". I've used them a few times and find their advice to be sound.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/

One last thing: don't expect any one person to be able to tell you what to buy. You need to spend a few hours googling and reading reviews and figuring out what is best for you. Before buying photography equipment I spend a lot of time (sometimes too much) exploring all avenues and figuring out which is best for me. There's a camera out there for you, and when you figure out which one it is you will be so happy once you have it.

[Phrasikleia]

OK so I started putting together a list of DSLRs and super-zooms. So which specs/features should I look for (what is most important)? After this I'll go to a store to try them all personally (if I'll find one over here...) and then decide, but I want to narrow it down to just, say, 4 cameras according to their specs.

Specs and features aren't going to vary much between entry-level DSLRs. With superzooms, you might get slightly different zoom ranges and sensor sizes. Your first decision should be which it is that you want. Do you want greater convenience or greater image quality? A superzoom will give you more zoom range in a smaller and lighter package. But its small sensor will mean more noise in the images:

http://www.megethos.com/Phrasikleia/SensorSizes.png

Those sensors in the bottom row are what you get in superzoom cameras. They are very small and don't have enough light-collecting power to do well in low-light situations. If you'll do most of your shooting outdoors in good light, then perhaps the sensor size won't be so much of an issue for you.

Most superzooms allow you to zoom with a lever on the camera around the shutter button. With a DSLR, you have to put your hand on the lens and rotate the zoom ring. So again, you lose some convenience with the DSLR.

However, the benefits of the superzoom pretty much end there. If you don't mind a camera that is a bit heftier, and if you don't mind fiddling a bit more when taking pictures, then you'll gain a lot by being able to change lenses to suit your situation and to increase creative possibilities. A good lens will enable you to do things that are not possible with a superzoom, such as creating dramatic subject/background separation (sharp subject, very blurry background). Great lenses also offer the potential for superlative image quality, of course.

So make that decision first: great convenience versus greater image quality and increased creative possibilities. Which do you prefer?

[Patriks7]

Just wondering, when you say superzoom, what do you mean? Point and shoot cameras can have 10x zooms, which would class it as a superzoom. Then there's 'bridge cameras' which come somewhere in between a point and shoot and a DSLR and usually have a large zoom, so would also be classed as a superzoom. You can even get superzoom lenses for DSLRs, like the 18-200mm Nikkor lens I have. The term "superzoom" really describes the focal range of a camera, not the form factor.

When looking at specs, don't get blinded by high megapixel counts. It's the image quality that matters, not the numbers. You can find out about image quality and other things that matter by looking on sights like "Trusted Reviews". I've used them a few times and find their advice to be sound.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/

One last thing: don't expect any one person to be able to tell you what to buy. You need to spend a few hours googling and reading reviews and figuring out what is best for you. Before buying photography equipment I spend a lot of time (sometimes too much) exploring all avenues and figuring out which is best for me. There's a camera out there for you, and when you figure out which one it is you will be so happy once you have it.

Yeah I mean a bridge camera. I just saw the term "super-zoom" on some sites so thought it's the term used (before I used "DSLR-like"). Also, thanks a lot for the site! I can already see myself buried in it for the next couple days/weeks :p

Most superzooms allow you to zoom with a lever on the camera around the shutter button. With a DSLR, you have to put your hand on the lens and rotate the zoom ring. So again, you lose some convenience with the DSLR.

However, the benefits of the superzoom pretty much end there. If you don't mind a camera that is a bit heftier, and if you don't mind fiddling a bit more when taking pictures, then you'll gain a lot by being able to change lenses to suit your situation and to increase creative possibilities. A good lens will enable you to do things that are not possible with a superzoom, such as creating dramatic subject/background separation (sharp subject, very blurry background). Great lenses also offer the potential for superlative image quality, of course.

So make that decision first: great convenience versus greater image quality and increased creative possibilities. Which do you prefer?

Thanks for the explanation there with the sensors. The more I think about it, I would rather prefer the image quality and creativity. After all, I can always have my point and shoot with me as well for the time I really need the convenience.
So I guess time to go back to Googling and reading all those reviews :p

[miles01110]

I like dcresource.com for reviews.

[Patriks7]

I like dcresource.com for reviews.

Thanks, I'll try it out. If anyones interested, I found a site called DPreview.com and it also seems quite good.
Also, is there any kind of camera event/show coming up soon where they could announce new stuff? (like within 2 months, cause I'm hoping to buy it by then)

[makismagoo99]

Try out kenrockwell.com (http://kenrockwell.com) for some pretty great information about cameras and photography in general.

I'm new to the DSLR world as well. I haven't bought one yet, so I can't offer much in terms of my own experience, but Ken Rockwell's site has given me a pretty good starting point. He highly recommends the Nikon D40 for someone in your (or my) shoes. As with any questions of this nature, take his advice with a grain of salt because, in the end, it's all about personal preference.

[Phrasikleia]

Also, is there any kind of camera event/show coming up soon where they could announce new stuff?

No. The entry-level cameras from the major players are all quite new right now. Pentax will be announcing a new consumer-level camera on May 20, but all information so far indicates that it will be a sort of MacBook Pro of DSLRs...that is, very slick, very sleek, and not at all cheap. They're apparently going to emphasize user experience (i.e. tactile luxury), build quality, and weather resistance (including a weather-resistant kit lens). So if any of that is interesting to you, then you might consider waiting ten days for the announcement. Otherwise, the big announcements at that tier have all come out already.

[wheelhot]

I'm new to the DSLR world as well. I haven't bought one yet, so I can't offer much in terms of my own experience, but Ken Rockwell's site has given me a pretty good starting point. He highly recommends the Nikon D40 for someone in your (or my) shoes. As with any questions of this nature, take his advice with a grain of salt because, in the end, it's all about personal preference.

Haha, do take note that the thing he says about the D40 esp. is totally exaggerated and D60 is not as bad as he made it sounds.

[Patriks7]

Haha, do take note that the thing he says about the D40 esp. is totally exaggerated and D60 is not as bad as he made it sounds.

Yeah he seemed to me to be quite the Nikon fanboy. I mean full pages of Nikon stuff, then 2 paragraphs on Canon (which I'm interested in more anyway :p)
But I sure learned some new stuff about lenses from there!

[ChrisA]

So what exactly is the difference between a DSLR and a super-zoom? From what I understand, the super-zoom has a fixed lens, which should be "OK" in most cases. Is that right?

Can anyone explain to me exactly what the differences between lenses are? Because the number I found is really overwhelming and I was not able to figure out the differences and uses.

So what I plan to shoot: practically, everything. From friends/family to sports to animals to architecture. Any advice on what would fit me better? DSLR or super-zoom?...

The SLR has a far better sensor. But also it is part of a larger "system". When you buy an SLR you are really not buying a camera, you are buying arts of a system of lenses and bodys. Choose the brand based on which system you like. Note that you will be "locked in" to that brand for many years so choose based on your needs now and in five or ten years. So, even if one brand were best for beginers, you are not likely to change brands, once you have an SLR body and a copy lenses you will want to stay with that brand.

Lenses have two numbers that specify their characteristics (1) Focal length, measured in milimeters. Some lenses are "zooms" can you can change the length. Some are fixed length. and (2) "Aperture" or "f-stop" or "speed". This s measures are a ratio or fraction -- the Length over the diameter. S an f/2 lens is larger than an f/4 lens and likely costs alot more.

[Patriks7]

Choose the brand based on which system you like. Note that you will be "locked in" to that brand for many years so choose based on your needs now and in five or ten years. So, even if one brand were best for beginers, you are not likely to change brands, once you have an SLR body and a copy lenses you will want to stay with that brand.

Yes, that is currently my biggest problem. Choosing the brand is not something easy and I am 1000% sure that I will not be wanting to buy a new body AND lenses from a different company in a couple years, thats why I'm doing all this research.
Currently I am going toward the Canon XSi as from what I read it seems to offer the best bang for the buck. Or maybe the T1i, but I read that the differences are quite minor.
If not, I also am waiting for some more reviews of the Olympus E620 as it looks like a pretty good one.
I am also thinking about the Sony A300/350 (or maybe the soon to be announced A330/380)
Don't know what, but there's something keeping me away from Nikon.

[cube]

Bang for the buck would be the K200D (weather sealing), or the E-620 (autofocus finetuning).

[gerlan]

Have you considered renting say Canon then Nikon/Pentax and try them out? Contact your local shops or perhaps visit your local camera club? The camera that you like using will be as good a choice as any? Consider it more of an investment than as an additional cost- a local store might even 'refund' the hire cost when you make a purchase with them.

[Patriks7]

Have you considered renting say Canon then Nikon/Pentax and try them out? Contact your local shops or perhaps visit your local camera club? The camera that you like using will be as good a choice as any? Consider it more of an investment than as an additional cost- a local store might even 'refund' the hire cost when you make a purchase with them.

I was thinking of doing that, unfortunately that doesn't work over here.

[makismagoo99]

Haha, do take note that the thing he says about the D40 esp. is totally exaggerated and D60 is not as bad as he made it sounds.

Yeah he seemed to me to be quite the Nikon fanboy. I mean full pages of Nikon stuff, then 2 paragraphs on Canon (which I'm interested in more anyway :p)
But I sure learned some new stuff about lenses from there!

Which is exactly why I added the caveat "take the advice with a grain of salt", haha :). I agree that he's biased and all, but at least he's got reasons to back up his opinions. Just weigh his opinions against how important they are to you.

That said, I'm suffering from analysis paralysis.:( I almost bought the D60, but KR got me thinking about the D40. Is the extra resolution REALLY that helpful when printing larger sized prints? Is the slower flash sync/lower ISO sensitivity of the D60 REALLY that much of a disadvantage?

Can anyone with more experience than I help me out?

[LittleCanonKid]

Which is exactly why I added the caveat "take the advice with a grain of salt", haha :). I agree that he's biased and all, but at least he's got reasons to back up his opinions. Just weigh his opinions against how important they are to you.

That said, I'm suffering from analysis paralysis.:( I almost bought the D60, but KR got me thinking about the D40. Is the extra resolution REALLY that helpful when printing larger sized prints? Is the slower flash sync/lower ISO sensitivity of the D60 REALLY that much of a disadvantage?

Can anyone with more experience than I help me out?From what I've seen, the D40 handles high ISO with more grace than the D60, but I haven't deeply looked into it so you might want to research a bit more.

Although, from my own experience, I rarely use the pop-up flash (it amounts to like less than three times a year, honestly) and it's an even rarer occasion where I would need a higher sync speed. KR seems to make a big deal about it but for me and what I shoot, it's not really that important. If you shot outdoor portraits often, then it would be a bigger factor.

[compuwar]

That said, I'm suffering from analysis paralysis.:( I almost bought the D60, but KR got me thinking about the D40. Is the extra resolution REALLY that helpful when printing larger sized prints? Is the slower flash sync/lower ISO sensitivity of the D60 REALLY that much of a disadvantage?

Can anyone with more experience than I help me out?

The extra resolution isn't really that big a deal. Get the D40 if you can find it priced better, and worry about what features you're going to want in your next body.

[Patriks7]

OK guys, so I have another question which I can't seem to find the answer to.
What is generally better; stabilization in the body or the lens?

[NYC Russ]

Hell all!

As someone with over a decade of professional consumer electronics experience, and 30 years of photography experience, here is my buying advice.

1) Any specific advice given by someone is usually highly biased. They're not telling you what is best for you, they are telling what is best for them.

2) Learn how to evaluate products in a showroom. I won't make specific brand or model recommendations because that won't serve anyone well.

3) What makes the best camera is the photographer behind it. Make sure that the camera is comfortable and intuitive to use. This makes it easier for the photographer and camera to become one.

4) Don't be afraid to buy used. A new camera is almost never an investment. It might be an operating cost for a professional, but it is not an investment. Whatever is purchased will lose resale value. New products lose it much faster than used. If a used camera and/or lens is purchased and buyer's remorse sets in a year later, a higher percentage of the purchase price is recoverable.

5) Lenses have their greatest issues in the corners, at wide open aperture settings, and at zoom extremes (if a zoom.) Start by looking at the least expensive lens. The distortion should be more obvious than in a premium lens. Try to figure out what is acceptable.

I hope that this helps.

[Phrasikleia]

OK guys, so I have another question which I can't seem to find the answer to.
What is generally better; stabilization in the body or the lens?

They each have their strengths and weaknesses. My husband and I decided to diversify our systems so that we could have one of each. He went with Pentax and has in-body stabilization. I went with Canon and have stabilized lenses. Stabilization works very well with both systems, but perhaps is more effective on longer focal lengths when it is in the lens. I might get one extra stop of stabilization over him at longer focal lengths. Where he beats me is that he can stick any lens he wants on his camera, including his fast prime lenses, and can have the best of both worlds: super sharp and fast lens PLUS stabilization (Canon has no prime lens that is stabilized under 200mm in length, and that 200mm lens costs $5,000).

Now some people will tell you that you "don't need" stabilization at shorter focal lengths, and I can only guess that these people shoot in good light all of the time. Having the combination of a fast lens (that is, one with a wide maximum aperture of at least f/2.8) and stabilization means you can shoot in very low-light situations, handholding with shutter speeds of about 1/4s.

So if you want to shoot mostly telephoto stuff, then in-lens stabilization will be better for you, but it is much more expensive than in-body stabilization. The latter does work well and can gain you a good two stops of speed, but in-lens stabilization might get you that extra third stop on these longer focal lengths.

[Patriks7]

Hell all!

As someone with over a decade of professional consumer electronics experience, and 30 years of photography experience, here is my buying advice.

1) Any specific advice given by someone is usually highly biased. They're not telling you what is best for you, they are telling what is best for them.

2) Learn how to evaluate products in a showroom. I won't make specific brand or model recommendations because that won't serve anyone well.

3) What makes the best camera is the photographer behind it. Make sure that the camera is comfortable and intuitive to use. This makes it easier for the photographer and camera to become one.

4) Don't be afraid to buy used. A new camera is almost never an investment. It might be an operating cost for a professional, but it is not an investment. Whatever is purchased will lose resale value. New products lose it much faster than used. If a used camera and/or lens is purchased and buyer's remorse sets in a year later, a higher percentage of the purchase price is recoverable.

5) Lenses have their greatest issues in the corners, at wide open aperture settings, and at zoom extremes (if a zoom.) Start by looking at the least expensive lens. The distortion should be more obvious than in a premium lens. Try to figure out what is acceptable.

I hope that this helps.

Thanks, I figured that would happen. But I was just looking for a direction to go in, since at the beginning I have to say I was pretty damn clueless :P and I think I'm on a much better road now in terms of my decision.
And I have to say that all of you helped me a lot so far! (especially with some of those review sites) I think I am really close to deciding on my first body (Canon XSi or T1i or 40D/50D (depends if the price I get will be much better on the 40D than 50D since I can get the 50D from an online site for much cheaper than other places but they don't have the 40D)) and now I'm investigating into lenses!

[Patriks7]

OK Canon guys, I have a question about some lenses.
I can get both the XS or XSi with either the EF-S 18-200mm or with the EF-S 18-55mm and EF-S 55-250mm (all IS), and I am undecided wether it's better to go with the single lens or the two lenses.
I read that the 18-200mm is of better build quality and it's easier since I lenses don't have to be switched. But I'm unsure of the difference between the 200 to 250mm. Is it really much of a difference? What would the the difference in quality and all that stuff? (I can't seem to find many places that compare them)

[Gold89]

But I'm unsure of the difference between the 200 to 250mm. Is it really much of a difference? What would the the difference in quality and all that stuff? (I can't seem to find many places that compare them)

Try these two:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php

[ftaok]

OK Canon guys, I have a question about some lenses.
I can get both the XS or XSi with either the EF-S 18-200mm or with the EF-S 18-55mm and EF-S 55-250mm (all IS), and I am undecided wether it's better to go with the single lens or the two lenses.

I have an XTi with the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS. I love this set-up for the following reasons.

1. The price was right. The price for the two of them cost me $430, although you may be able to better prices now.

2. Both lenses have pretty good IQ.

3. Overall weight is not bad.

Now, here are the things that I don't like.

1. Switching from one lens to the other can be quite a hassle, depending on the situation.

2. Both lenses have plastic mounts, although I haven't had any issues, it's something that I worry about.

I think overall, from what I've read, the IQ of the 18-55/55-250 combo is better than the 18-200. But the convenience of having one lens to cover the entire range (well, most of the range) can be a big factor for some.

So decide what's more important to you and go with it.

ft

[Patriks7]

I have an XTi with the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS. I love this set-up for the following reasons.

1. The price was right. The price for the two of them cost me $430, although you may be able to better prices now.

2. Both lenses have pretty good IQ.

3. Overall weight is not bad.

Now, here are the things that I don't like.

1. Switching from one lens to the other can be quite a hassle, depending on the situation.

2. Both lenses have plastic mounts, although I haven't had any issues, it's something that I worry about.

I think overall, from what I've read, the IQ of the 18-55/55-250 combo is better than the 18-200. But the convenience of having one lens to cover the entire range (well, most of the range) can be a big factor for some.

So decide what's more important to you and go with it.

ft

Thanks for the reply!
So how is the plastic mount? Do you think there's a chance something can break?
I am inclined to go the combo way, since I think most of the times I'll probably be better off with the 55-250, since that seems to be a pretty neutral lens for most things and then I can always put on the other one when I need to. I was also considering to get the EF 50mm 1.8, but I think that would be too much (and pointless). But I'll try to go to a store to try them out.

[ftaok]

Thanks for the reply!
So how is the plastic mount? Do you think there's a chance something can break?The plastic mount has been fine, and honestly, I don't have any lenses with metal mounts, so I don't really know one way or the other. It's just all of the horror stories I read on the Internet that has me somewhat concerned.

I am inclined to go the combo way, since I think most of the times I'll probably be better off with the 55-250, since that seems to be a pretty neutral lens for most things and then I can always put on the other one when I need to. I was also considering to get the EF 50mm 1.8, but I think that would be too much (and pointless). But I'll try to go to a store to try them out.Well the next lens that I'm getting is the EF 50mm f/1.8. I don't think it's pointless ... at least for me. I like taking photos indoors of my kids and I don't like to use the flash. So having a fast prime would be good for these situations. However, I'm beginning to think that adding a speedlight would be a better option for me since I could bounce the flash or move it off camera and get really creative.

Or maybe the 50mm and the flash.

As for the 55-250, I really like this lens. I prefer it over the 18-55 for the photos that I take. I like to get shots of my kids, but I find that with the 18-55, I have to stand pretty close to them. The longer range of the 55-250 allows me to shoot from further back and I get many more "candid" shots.

Maybe one of these days, I'll get the 28-135 lens that will give me complete coverage across the 35 to 110 mm range that I seem to like.

[Patriks7]

The plastic mount has been fine, and honestly, I don't have any lenses with metal mounts, so I don't really know one way or the other. It's just all of the horror stories I read on the Internet that has me somewhat concerned.

Well the next lens that I'm getting is the EF 50mm f/1.8. I don't think it's pointless ... at least for me. I like taking photos indoors of my kids and I don't like to use the flash. So having a fast prime would be good for these situations. However, I'm beginning to think that adding a speedlight would be a better option for me since I could bounce the flash or move it off camera and get really creative.

Or maybe the 50mm and the flash.

As for the 55-250, I really like this lens. I prefer it over the 18-55 for the photos that I take. I like to get shots of my kids, but I find that with the 18-55, I have to stand pretty close to them. The longer range of the 55-250 allows me to shoot from further back and I get many more "candid" shots.

Maybe one of these days, I'll get the 28-135 lens that will give me complete coverage across the 35 to 110 mm range that I seem to like.

Yeah, that is one thing scaring me a bit away (the plastic mounts) but if they'd be breaking, I think Canon wouldn't be selling as many of them. And the flash is one of the most recommended accessories to get from what I see. Any idea which one you would get? I'm currently looking at either the 420EX or 430EX. They both seem pretty good from reviews and the price is great as well (130-200).

[ftaok]

Yeah, that is one thing scaring me a bit away (the plastic mounts) but if they'd be breaking, I think Canon wouldn't be selling as many of them. And the flash is one of the most recommended accessories to get from what I see. Any idea which one you would get? I'm currently looking at either the 420EX or 430EX. They both seem pretty good from reviews and the price is great as well (130-200).
As far as the durability of the plastic mount, it's probably all in my head. I'm sure it's fine, but I still am very careful with it, especially the 55-250 since it's longer.

For flashes, I think I'm starting off with the 430EXII. I think the 270EX would be nice, but the lack of IR reduces it's usefulness for off-camera shooting.

The 580EX is nice, but for me, it's probably overkill.

ft

[wheelhot]

For flashes, I think I'm starting off with the 430EXII. I think the 270EX would be nice, but the lack of IR reduces it's usefulness for off-camera shooting.

The 580EX is nice, but for me, it's probably overkill.

Why would it be? I read countless reviews where the reviewer say eventhough 430 EX II is a very capable flashgun, he/she regretted not spending extra to get 580 EXII cause the extra features that is found in it is proved to be very useful indeed and now he/she need to shop for a 580 EXII. I'm aiming for a 580EXII straight away so that if I ever need to make a wireless flash system, I can borrow my friends flash gun and do not need to be surprised with the control cause I will be using the flash gun I'm used with as my master.

[ftaok]

Why would it be? I read countless reviews where the reviewer say eventhough 430 EX II is a very capable flashgun, he/she regretted not spending extra to get 580 EXII cause the extra features that is found in it is proved to be very useful indeed and now he/she need to shop for a 580 EXII. I'm aiming for a 580EXII straight away so that if I ever need to make a wireless flash system, I can borrow my friends flash gun and do not need to be surprised with the control cause I will be using the flash gun I'm used with as my master.

The main reason for choosing the 430EXII over the 580EX is cost. Sure, I know, penny wise, pound foolish ... but in my case, if I get the 430 first, I'll have it sooner, rather than later (or not at all).

If I want to do wireless, I would have to buy a second flash anyways, so that one could be a 580. Or I could go with a Radio Popper or Pocket Wizard and a second 430EXII to gain more reliable wireless for only a little more money.

This is only a hobby for me. I don't need to go overboard and buy the best stuff. The 430 is plenty for me.

ft

[Patriks7]

The main reason for choosing the 430EXII over the 580EX is cost. Sure, I know, penny wise, pound foolish ... but in my case, if I get the 430 first, I'll have it sooner, rather than later (or not at all).

If I want to do wireless, I would have to buy a second flash anyways, so that one could be a 580. Or I could go with a Radio Popper or Pocket Wizard and a second 430EXII to gain more reliable wireless for only a little more money.

This is only a hobby for me. I don't need to go overboard and buy the best stuff. The 430 is plenty for me.

ft

That's my exact same reason for going with the cheaper one. If I'd be doing this professionally, I would of course go for the better one. I mean I have no reason to go wireless etc.
Anyway, I still haven't decided on my first camera, but I think I'm even closer with deciding between the XSi and 40D. First I have to go see them in person, then I will be able to decide.
But I still have trouble deciding on the lens. I wanted to go for the EF-S 28-200, but I read that the quality is really not worth it. On the other hand, I don't know how it will work with two lenses. Maybe I'll get the EF-S 55-250 IS for now and then a higher-end zoom in the lower end later on. Seems like the most reasonable thing right now, since that one will provide me the most basic things I need (portrait and a bit of wildlife) and maybe I'll add the EF 50 f1.8 for it's low light quality. What do you guys think? Would it be good like that or should I get the double zoom kit with the 28-55 and 55-250?

[Phrasikleia]

That's my exact same reason for going with the cheaper one. If I'd be doing this professionally, I would of course go for the better one. I mean I have no reason to go wireless etc.
Anyway, I still haven't decided on my first camera, but I think I'm even closer with deciding between the XSi and 40D. First I have to go see them in person, then I will be able to decide.
But I still have trouble deciding on the lens. I wanted to go for the EF-S 28-200, but I read that the quality is really not worth it. On the other hand, I don't know how it will work with two lenses. Maybe I'll get the EF-S 55-250 IS for now and then a higher-end zoom in the lower end later on. Seems like the most reasonable thing right now, since that one will provide me the most basic things I need (portrait and a bit of wildlife) and maybe I'll add the EF 50 f1.8 for it's low light quality. What do you guys think? Would it be good like that or should I get the double zoom kit with the 28-55 and 55-250?

If you have only a 55-250, I think you'll probably miss having something wider. 55mm on an APS-C sensor is quite long--a portrait length, as you mentioned. Will you really never want to shoot any landscapes or anything indoors? For those situations, you'll want something wider. The 18-55mm IS kit lens is a very capable and admirable little lens. It's also the standard kit lens for a reason: that's the most useful range of focal lengths for most people.

The 50 f/1.8 is not only great for low light. It enables you to get creative with shallow depth-of-field, which is a lot of fun. It's a great starter prime, and for the money, a terrific value.

[ftaok]

Maybe I'll get the EF-S 55-250 IS for now and then a higher-end zoom in the lower end later on. Seems like the most reasonable thing right now, since that one will provide me the most basic things I need (portrait and a bit of wildlife) and maybe I'll add the EF 50 f1.8 for it's low light quality. What do you guys think? Would it be good like that or should I get the double zoom kit with the 28-55 and 55-250?

Well, like I said, I have that exact lens set-up (the double kit - note that it's 18-55, not 28-55), although I bought them separately. Having IS on the lenses is nice. Both lenses are decent and I can take pretty sharp pictures with them.

Add the 50mm 1.8 and you'll have the "Plastic Fantastic" set of lenses.

ft

[Patriks7]

If you have only a 55-250, I think you'll probably miss having something wider. 55mm on an APS-C sensor is quite long--a portrait length, as you mentioned. Will you really never want to shoot any landscapes or anything indoors? For those situations, you'll want something wider. The 18-55mm IS kit lens is a very capable and admirable little lens. It's also the standard kit lens for a reason: that's the most useful range of focal lengths for most people.

The 50 f/1.8 is not only great for low light. It enables you to get creative with shallow depth-of-field, which is a lot of fun. It's a great starter prime, and for the money, a terrific value.

Thanks for the clarification. I think that now I'm set to get the double zoom kit with the 50 f/1.8. Now to just choose a body :p

[cube]

Wrong thread.

[Patriks7]

Just another question. Do you guys have any good bag/case to carry all the stuff? So the body (450D or 40D, still undecided) 2 zoom lenses, the 50mm, maybe a flash and maybe the battery grip, my point and shoot and some small extras (charger etc.). I have searched some, but they all seem to be either way too big or just of lousy quality. I'm thinking of getting a bag where I could fit my laptop as well.

[Phrasikleia]

Just another question. Do you guys have any good bag/case to carry all the stuff? So the body (450D or 40D, still undecided) 2 zoom lenses, the 50mm, maybe a flash and maybe the battery grip, my point and shoot and some small extras (charger etc.). I have searched some, but they all seem to be either way too big or just of lousy quality. I'm thinking of getting a bag where I could fit my laptop as well.

There are a number of good backpack designs that accommodate a laptop and the amount of equipment you list. The newest Lowepro bags also incorporate easy access features, enabling you to remove or store the camera without taking off the backpack.

The one I chose (the Flipside 200) does not hold a laptop, but it holds exactly the amount of gear you listed and has a unique anti-theft/easy-access feature: the bag is accessible only via a panel that is against your back, to which you gain access by swiveling the backpack around to your front (it remains fastened around your waist). It then projects out in front of you like a little table. I love it. I also love its overall size when loaded. It's very narrow and therefore feels nicely balanced when I'm moving around.

[Patriks7]

There are a number of good backpack designs that accommodate a laptop and the amount of equipment you list. The newest Lowepro bags also incorporate easy access features, enabling you to remove or store the camera without taking off the backpack.

The one I chose (the Flipside 200) does not hold a laptop, but it holds exactly the amount of gear you listed and has a unique anti-theft/easy-access feature: the bag is accessible only via a panel that is against your back, to which you gain access by swiveling the backpack around to your front (it remains fastened around your waist). It then projects out in front of you like a little table. I love it. I also love its overall size when loaded. It's very narrow and therefore feels nicely balanced when I'm moving around.

Thanks! Those look real great and have a great size for what they can fit!
I just have another small question; when I was looking through some accessories, I came across the Extension tube 12mm/25mm, but after reading and reading I was unable to figure out what it exactly does. Anyone mind explaining?

[cube]

If you're going for a backpack, look for one without reports of cracked notebook screens.

[Patriks7]

If you're going for a backpack, look for one without reports of cracked notebook screens.

Ah yes, I noticed this to be quite a problem with quite a lot of them. Looks like I'll just get a normal case for them. After all, I won't be taking my laptop everywhere my camera will go, so it would be a waste I think. I'm thinking now to even get an original Canon bag (the place I'll be buying my camera from gives them for free with certain cameras) and they are quite big for all I need, so I just force them to give me one too :p Then I will look into getting something small that will fit just my camera and 18-55 when I go to, say, see a city I'm in and don't want to carry all of my stuff.

[Patriks7]

OK, there is another thing that I need some explanation with, including the extension tube. What are the importance and uses of filters/hoods? I seem to find very differing opinions, so I am even more confused :confused:

[LittleCanonKid]

OK, there is another thing that I need some explanation with, including the extension tube. What are the importance and uses of filters/hoods? I seem to find very differing opinions, so I am even more confused :confused:Hoods protect the lens from flare and bumps and such. Hoods are pretty much universally thought to be good--I haven't seen anyone say they're bad.

Filters are where things get interesting. Some argue that it's great to have something to protect the lens from smudges, dust, scratches, etc while others think the hood is enough and all you're doing by putting the filter on is negatively affecting the image quality. If you get a good enough filter (multi-coated, good brand) then I don't think it's that big of a deal.

[Patriks7]

Hoods protect the lens from flare and bumps and such. Hoods are pretty much universally thought to be good--I haven't seen anyone say they're bad.

Filters are where things get interesting. Some argue that it's great to have something to protect the lens from smudges, dust, scratches, etc while others think the hood is enough and all you're doing by putting the filter on is negatively affecting the image quality. If you get a good enough filter (multi-coated, good brand) then I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Ah, OK. And is it possible to have both, a filter and a hood on a lens?

[compuwar]

If you get a good enough filter (multi-coated, good brand) then I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Even with the best filters, you'll lose resolution in every shot you take- someone once posted the loss figures here, and I want to say it was about 14lp/mm- but I don't recall for sure, and I'm not having any luck with searches. How big a deal that is depends on what's important to you. There are lots of folks replacing AA filters with glass with the same refractive index at several hundred dollars a pop to achieve the best resolution they can get.

For most lenses you can have both a hood and a filter, though there are a few ultra-wides that won't take even a slim filter.

[Patriks7]

Even with the best filters, you'll lose resolution in every shot you take- someone once posted the loss figures here, and I want to say it was about 14lp/mm- but I don't recall for sure, and I'm not having any luck with searches. How big a deal that is depends on what's important to you. There are lots of folks replacing AA filters with glass with the same refractive index at several hundred dollars a pop to achieve the best resolution they can get.

For most lenses you can have both a hood and a filter, though there are a few ultra-wides that won't take even a slim filter.

Thanks for the explanation. I think I'd prefer the protection over the bit of resolution I'll lose. I mean, after all, I'll be doing this as a hobby, not professionally.

[ajumbaje]

im deciding between a nikon d5000 and a d90. I really liked the feel of the d90 and it comes with a better lens than the d5000. One thing I really want to do is sports pics(casual, not professional) and the fps attracted me. Only thing might be the price, but it's gonna be a gift and hopefully the gift buyer wont mind the higher end one. I do like the d5000 screen but I think that if im gonna be doing dslr photos, im not gonna be point and shoot like that screen implies.

So, any suggestions? D90 or D5000?

[Patriks7]

OK, so having talked to some people, I'm deciding to go for the 400D.
With this, I'm planning to get the 50 f/1.8 and 70-200 f/4 lenses to accompany the kit lens. But after reading so much bad stuff about the older kit lens, I'm wanting to skip it and go to something better. Would the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 USM be a good choice?

[ftaok]

OK, so having talked to some people, I'm deciding to go for the 400D.
With this, I'm planning to get the 50 f/1.8 and 70-200 f/4 lenses to accompany the kit lens. But after reading so much bad stuff about the older kit lens, I'm wanting to skip it and go to something better. Would the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 USM be a good choice?

The 400D is a few years old. I have one, although over here, it's called the Xti.

I also had reservations about the old 18-55 kit lens, so I bought the Xti body-only and bought the 18-55IS. Later, I added the 55-250IS. The 50 f/1.8 is next on the list, although I'll probably get the 430EXII first.

The 24-85 got a very good review on Photozone, but one of the knocks against it was the focal length. Depending on what you want to shoot, the 24mm on the short end may be limiting.

ft

EDIT - I'm guessing you meant the 40D, right? If so, then forget about my comments on the Xti. The stuff about the lenses still apply.

[Patriks7]

The 400D is a few years old. I have one, although over here, it's called the Xti.

I also had reservations about the old 18-55 kit lens, so I bought the Xti body-only and bought the 18-55IS. Later, I added the 55-250IS. The 50 f/1.8 is next on the list, although I'll probably get the 430EXII first.

The 24-85 got a very good review on Photozone, but one of the knocks against it was the focal length. Depending on what you want to shoot, the 24mm on the short end may be limiting.

ft

EDIT - I'm guessing you meant the 40D, right? If so, then forget about my comments on the Xti. The stuff about the lenses still apply.

No, I meant 400D. The 40D seems to be too big for my liking :p

[LittleCanonKid]

OK, so having talked to some people, I'm deciding to go for the 400D.
With this, I'm planning to get the 50 f/1.8 and 70-200 f/4 lenses to accompany the kit lens. But after reading so much bad stuff about the older kit lens, I'm wanting to skip it and go to something better. Would the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 USM be a good choice?Great choice, especially in glass. With a decent walkaround lens you're good to go.

I would agree with ftaok about the 24-85. 24mm on a cropped sensor isn't all that wide. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 seems to be well-liked, with the constant f/2.8 aperture in a good focal length range for cropped bodies. They run around 400 dollars, from what I've seen. The newer kit lens, the 18-55 IS, is of course slow (but sharp) and only costs around 150.

[Patriks7]

Great choice, especially in glass. With a decent walkaround lens you're good to go.

I would agree with ftaok about the 24-85. 24mm on a cropped sensor isn't all that wide. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 seems to be well-liked, with the constant f/2.8 aperture in a good focal length range for cropped bodies. They run around 400 dollars, from what I've seen. The newer kit lens, the 18-55 IS, is of course slow (but sharp) and only costs around 150.

Yes, I heard about the Tamron. Unfortunately they don't sell them here.

[compuwar]

Yes, I heard about the Tamron. Unfortunately they don't sell them here.

Here are Tamron's listed distributors for the locations in your profile:

Austria
Slach Bildtechnik Vertriebsges.m.b.H. & Co KG
email: info@slach.at
www.slach.at Kolpingstrasse 21
1230 Wien Tel: +43 (1) 61044-0
Fax: +43 (1) 61044-50

Slovakia
Penta SK s.r.o.
email: predaj@pentask.sk
www.pentask.sk Hradská 3G
821 07 Bratislava Tel:+421 (2) 40 20 25 51
Fax: +421 (2) 40 20 25 59

[Phrasikleia]

Yes, I heard about the Tamron. Unfortunately they don't sell them here.

You can get Tamron lenses anywhere in the EU. Here's one place in Austria that has a couple in Stock:

http://www.electronic4you.at

I'm sure you'll have no problem finding the 17-50mm in either country. You might have to order online or place an order at a shop, but you can get one. You can also get them on eBay.de.

[Patriks7]

Wow. I never heard of those places. Looks like I'll have to check them out this weekend! I was looking at ordering them online, but I prefer in a store since when something goes wrong I can just bring it there and get it exchanged, but if I'd get it online, I'd have to send it back and wait a long time.
So you guys reckon I should rather get that Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? Looks like it would accompany the 50 f/1.8 and the 70-200 f/4 well. Maybe since that one is 2.8 the 1.8 might not even be as necessary.

[Patriks7]

I just looked at their site and saw they have a pretty nice 70-200 f/2.8 as well. Anybody have experience with it? looks like it could be a better buy than the Canon with f/4.


Edit - I just read a couple reviews that suggest to kind of keep away from it. I also read that the 17-50 has an opposite turning zoom/focus ring. Could that cause any problems, or is it easy to get used to the difference?

[cube]

You should check the warranty conditions of the manufacturer.

For example, for Nikon lenses, gray market will give you NO warranty (from Nikon), unauthorized dealer with official import will mean 1 year warranty from Nikon, and authorized dealer WITH OFFICIAL IMPORT implies 1+4 year warranty from Nikon. [You should always check the particulars for a specific country]

[Patriks7]

You should check the warranty conditions of the manufacturer.

For example, for Nikon lenses, gray market will give you NO warranty (from Nikon), unauthorized dealer with official import will mean 1 year warranty from Nikon, and authorized dealer WITH OFFICIAL IMPORT implies 1+4 year warranty from Nikon. [You should always check the particulars for a specific country]

Yes, thanks for the reminder. I was about to go to a store here tomorrow to ask about all that.

[cube]

At least in USA, Nikon will simply refuse to service any gray market equipment, even if you want to pay them.

With official imports you can always pay an EXPENSIVE fee for servicing after the warranty is over.

[Patriks7]

At least in USA, Nikon will simply refuse to service any gray market equipment, even if you want to pay them.

With official imports you can always pay an EXPENSIVE fee for servicing after the warranty is over.

Well I just looked up the store where I plan to get my camera, and they in fact have that Tamron there (no idea how I overlooked it before) so I'm guessing they would probably provide service for it. But I'll ask them, since that is a fairly major reason I am against buying online/third party.

[cube]

You have to check about what "service" means.

In USA for example you will find authorized dealers that sell both official imports and gray market items. The gray market items will be a bit cheaper and their warranty will be handle by the store or an independent third party. Only the official imports will get the warranty from the manufacturer.

Note also that while a gray market item will normally mean you will have to deal with an entity from the country where you bought it, an official import might be covered by a worldwide warranty, provided that it was official in the country where you bought it.

[cube]

I don't know for the other brands, but an official Nikon lens should come with a yellow Nikon worldwide warranty registration card.

[Phrasikleia]

Well I just looked up the store where I plan to get my camera, and they in fact have that Tamron there (no idea how I overlooked it before) so I'm guessing they would probably provide service for it. But I'll ask them, since that is a fairly major reason I am against buying online/third party.

I believe EU law requires items sold there to be covered for six years, no?

[Patriks7]

I believe EU law requires items sold there to be covered for six years, no?

I think so. I'm not sure for most things, since the last thing I look at is warranties in most cases :x But most things I keep seeing for cameras and stuff say they are covered for 6 years.
Just another question. Out of a practical point of view, what would be more useful? A battery grip or an external flash (430EX)? I'm wanting to get them all eventually, but I'm not sure if they will both fit my budget right now. Also, how are third party battery grips compared to the original Canon one?

[Phrasikleia]

I think so. I'm not sure for most things, since the last thing I look at is warranties in most cases :x But most things I keep seeing for cameras and stuff say they are covered for 6 years.
Just another question. Out of a practical point of view, what would be more useful? A battery grip or an external flash (430EX)? I'm wanting to get them all eventually, but I'm not sure if they will both fit my budget right now. Also, how are third party battery grips compared to the original Canon one?

The third party battery grips will work, but they lack some of the buttons that are duplicated on the official Canon one.

It's a really tough call between the external flash and the grip. I have both and don't know how I could part with either one. I guess the short answer is that I use the grip 100% of the time and the flash only on occasion. I like that the grip makes the camera feel more balanced, and I love not having to hike one elbow in the air to shoot in portrait orientation.

[Patriks7]

The third party battery grips will work, but they lack some of the buttons that are duplicated on the official Canon one.

It's a really tough call between the external flash and the grip. I have both and don't know how I could part with either one. I guess the short answer is that I use the grip 100% of the time and the flash only on occasion. I like that the grip makes the camera feel more balanced, and I love not having to hike one elbow in the air to shoot in portrait orientation.

OK thanks! I'll probably go for the grip now and flash later. I'll definitely have to try it out tomorrow to decide though.

[LittleCanonKid]

OK thanks! I'll probably go for the grip now and flash later. I'll definitely have to try it out tomorrow to decide though.The grip will probably help out the most with the 70-200 f/4L. I use it, sans battery grip and on a Rebel body it does feel unbalanced. Good luck with your purchases!

[Patriks7]

The grip will probably help out the most with the 70-200 f/4L. I use it, sans battery grip and on a Rebel body it does feel unbalanced. Good luck with your purchases!

Yes, I figured that would be a problem! I mean the camera is around 500g and that lens is around 750g! Quite a difference.
Hopefully they will have all three (camera, lens, grip) at the store I'm going to so I can try them all out.

[Patriks7]

OK, so after some quality time with all the cameras at the store :cool: I am 95% decided on the 450D with battery grip, 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron, 70-200 f/4 L, 50 f/1.8 and Lowepro bag (probably Flipside 200/300). After a lot of thinking, I've decided to get the external flash later.
So I want to thank you all for contributing to this thread and helping me make my choice easier ;) (but wait for more posts once I get into some trouble with the camera :p)

[Phrasikleia]

OK, so after some quality time with all the cameras at the store :cool: I am 95% decided on the 450D with battery grip, 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron, 70-200 f/4 L, 50 f/1.8 and Lowepro bag (probably Flipside 200/300). After a lot of thinking, I've decided to get the external flash later.
So I want to thank you all for contributing to this thread and helping me make my choice easier ;) (but wait for more posts once I get into some trouble with the camera :p)

Very nice kit. Enjoy!!

[Potus]

No one has mentioned Olympus DSLRs. I have two Oly backs: the E-500 (currently @$800.00) and E-510 (currently at $689.00 with 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 and 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 Zuiko kit lenses). I have a number of lenses but my 2 favorites are the Olympus 50mm f/2.0 Telephoto Macro ED lens and the Zuiko 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 Digital ED SWD zoom lens. I love these cameras. I literally use them every day. I can't think of single shot that was bad because of camera or lens failure. And these lenses are superb. I like the sturdy feel of the backs and the Four Thirds lens systems gives you fantastic lenses at less weight and bulk.

As someone said above, buying a DSLR is a commitment: you buy backs and lenses as your needs change and expand, which means taking steps down a certain path and pretty much sticking with it unless you have deep pockets. If I were starting out today, I would get the new Oly E-30 12.3MP and the two lenses I mentioned. Or if size is an issue, and you want something small and light, I'd get the E-420 with the 25mm pancake lens which comein arount $500.00.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[wheelhot]

Wow, you got a very nice startup lenses there. Envy you :D

Enjoy your gear and be sure to post some photos in photos of the day while at it ;)

[compuwar]

No one has mentioned Olympus DSLRs.

Wrong, they were mentioned by the OP as well as others (posts #3, #16, #17, #19, #33, and #34)- but once the OP decided on the Canon (post #69,) nobody else had a fanboy moment.

[compuwar]

I came across the Extension tube 12mm/25mm, but after reading and reading I was unable to figure out what it exactly does. Anyone mind explaining?

Extension tubes sit between the lens and the camera, and shift the focusing plane to give you basic macro results by allowing you to be closer to the subject than the lens alone allows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_tube

[Patriks7]

Wrong, they were mentioned by the OP as well as others (posts #3, #16, #17, #19, #33, and #34)- but once the OP decided on the Canon (post #69,) nobody else had a fanboy moment.

Haha, "fanboy moment"

Extension tubes sit between the lens and the camera, and shift the focusing plane to give you basic macro results by allowing you to be closer to the subject than the lens alone allows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_tube

OK thanks. So how useful are they in practice? I would guess in the end it'd be cheaper to just get a dedicated Macro lens, or?

Wow, you got a very nice startup lenses there. Envy you :D

Enjoy your gear and be sure to post some photos in photos of the day while at it ;)

Thanks! I will definitely post (once my exams are over, that is) Then I get to spend a lovely summer in Spain, so there is definitely A LOT of things to take photos of :D

[compuwar]

OK thanks. So how useful are they in practice? I would guess in the end it'd be cheaper to just get a dedicated Macro lens, or?

Depends on how much macro you shoot, how much magnification you want and what lenses you have. It's easier to get a macro lens, but not cheaper- if you don't need automatic coupling, you can get a set of tubes for under $10 on eBay. Your choices are tubes, diopters, reversing rings or a macro lens- macro lenses are the easiest/quickest of the bunch.

[Patriks7]

Depends on how much macro you shoot, how much magnification you want and what lenses you have. It's easier to get a macro lens, but not cheaper- if you don't need automatic coupling, you can get a set of tubes for under $10 on eBay. Your choices are tubes, diopters, reversing rings or a macro lens- macro lenses are the easiest/quickest of the bunch.

OK. So if I generally don't shoot much macro, it would be better to get some tubes or diopters then? Out of those two, which would you recommend to be better?

[compuwar]

OK. So if I generally don't shoot much macro, it would be better to get some tubes or diopters then? Out of those two, which would you recommend to be better?

It's a toss-up, if you have lenses with manual apertures, then I'd go with cheap tubes for flexibility though.

[Phrasikleia]

Wrong, they were mentioned by the OP as well as others (posts #3, #16, #17, #19, #33, and #34)- but once the OP decided on the Canon (post #69,) nobody else had a fanboy moment.

Classic compuwar retort. Gotta love it. :D

[Patriks7]

It's a toss-up, if you have lenses with manual apertures, then I'd go with cheap tubes for flexibility though.

OK! So I'll see how everything goes then, and if I'll get sucked into macro photography, I'll definitely get a dedicated lens. If not, a couple tubes will be enough :cool: Now I just have to get my mind off photography a bit so I can pass my exams that I have in about 3 weeks :p

[Macintosh¯Lover]

If you are going to get a superzoom get a sony DSC h50 i Bought one a few weeks ago and it rocks. it evan takes IR Pics.

[Patriks7]

If you are going to get a superzoom get a sony DSC h50 i Bought one a few weeks ago and it rocks. it evan takes IR Pics.

Thanks for the input, but I already decided on a Canon DSLR loooong ago :D

Now I already have a lens on my wish-list! Either the 60mm or 100mm macro :p

[Patriks7]

Sorry guys for reopening this thread, but I just found out that I should have sufficient funds to also fit a macro lens into my budget.
So out of the two Canons 60mm and 100mm, which would you recommend? Any third party you would recommend?

[Phrasikleia]

Sorry guys for reopening this thread, but I just found out that I should have sufficient funds to also fit a macro lens into my budget.
So out of the two Canons 60mm and 100mm, which would you recommend? Any third party you would recommend?

I went for the 60mm for two reasons. One is that I wanted something to replace my "nifty fifty," and the other is that I already had a 100mm f/2 as my portrait lens. If you need greater working distance (e.g. for shooting bugs), then you might prefer the 100mm f/2.8. The 100mm will also be better for portraits since it gives you greater background magnification. However, the 100mm is a long lens, so it's not much good for shooting in small spaces. Also, if you aren't using a tripod, the longer focal length will mean more camera shake.

I really like the working distance of the 60mm lens, but I don't ever point it at insects (I'm too squeamish!).

[Patriks7]

I went for the 60mm for two reasons. One is that I wanted something to replace my "nifty fifty," and the other is that I already had a 100mm f/2 as my portrait lens. If you need greater working distance (e.g. for shooting bugs), then you might prefer the 100mm f/2.8. The 100mm will also be better for portraits since it gives you greater background magnification. However, the 100mm is a long lens, so it's not much good for shooting in small spaces. Also, if you aren't using a tripod, the longer focal length will mean more camera shake.

I really like the working distance of the 60mm lens, but I don't ever point it at insects (I'm too squeamish!).

Ha yeah, that's my exact problem right now :p the 60mm will fill the gap nicely between the 17-50 and 70-200, but the 100 gives more working distance (since I plan to shoot bugs as well :p) but doubt I would bring my tripod everywhere I go.
Now this is one reason why I have photography :D too many choices and none of them will give what you really need :p

[apearlman]

Ha yeah, that's my exact problem right now :p the 60mm will fill the gap nicely between the 17-50 and 70-200, but the 100 gives more working distance (since I plan to shoot bugs as well :p) but doubt I would bring my tripod everywhere I go.

Ignore the "gap" between 50 and 70mm. There's no need to "fill" it. The difference is a step or two forward/back. For 4 years I've had nothing in the 50-70 range, and never once have I thought to myself, "Damn, I could get the perfect shot if only I had a 60!"

[apearlman]

Sorry guys for reopening this thread, but

With a new question, you should probably start a new thread. Many people will see a 5-page thread and ignore it, assuming the discussion has wandered off in one of the usual digressions. (Canon! Nikon!)

[Phrasikleia]

With a new question, you should probably start a new thread. Many people will see a 5-page thread and ignore it, assuming the discussion has wandered off in one of the usual digressions. (Canon! Nikon!)

Hehe. So true. It's not uncommon for a thread to devolve into raging brand war after the OP is long gone...which of course would never happen if people just realized from the beginning that Canon is way better than Nikon...

Kidding!! :p :D

[Patriks7]

With a new question, you should probably start a new thread. Many people will see a 5-page thread and ignore it, assuming the discussion has wandered off in one of the usual digressions. (Canon! Nikon!)

True... I'll start one next time :p

Hehe. So true. It's not uncommon for a thread to devolve into raging brand war after the OP is long gone...which of course would never happen if people just realized from the beginning that Canon is way better than Nikon...

Kidding!! :p :D

I mean everybody has to know that! :p