looking for a camera to learn with

[Smileyguy]

Hi,

I've posted a bit in the photography forum over the years but not much. However I'm planning to get a camera for Christmas and am now really eager to start taking photography more seriously and to learn as much as possible. I've been meaning to get a decent camera for years but haven't been able to for various reasons (typically money). But now I'm definitely ready to get one.

So yes, this is another 'what camera should I buy thread?'. I've done lots of reading on this topic and I'll try to make what I'm looking for as clear as possible.

I'm leaning towards a digital point & shoot or digital SLR-like camera. My thinking is that I'll get one of these, play around with it, learn with it and experiment, and then when (and if) I decide to take the next stop, get an SLR. Then the machine I buy now can become a back-up/family camera.

I know there might be advantages to getting a digital or even film SLR right away for learning, but I'd really like a small enough digital camera anyway for home/family use, carrying out easily in my pocket or bag, for taking short videos for my blog and of home/family stuff.

So here's some basic info on what I'm looking for.

The kind of photography I most want to learn most: Nature (landscape/wildlife) and documentary/photojournalism

My budget: €350/ $500 (can add a bit more on for other bits but would like to stick to this for the camera)

What I want from the camera:


Good quality photos, good zoom (x10 optical would be ideal considering I want to play around with nature stuff)

Good video-capturing capabilities

Enough manual function that I can learn as much as possible from using it. This is crucial.

Not too big - obviously I don't expect something tiny considering all the above, but something I can carry easily is a big advantage because if I get an SLR in future I'd like this camera to revert to being a family unit/ something I can carry around easily


If I'm just looking for too much please tell me - the most crucial thing really is learning manual functions.

Thanks very much for reading,

SG

[ChrisA]

If the goal is to learn photography and you are short of cash buy a used Nikon D50 with the "kit" lens. This should cost you about $300.

If the goal is to take family or vacation snapshots then go ahead and buy a point and shoot.

The are no "SLR-like" point and shoots, only P&S camera there have a cosmetic resemblance to SLRs.

The D50 is great because it can be used any Nikon lens (going back to the early 1960's) and is not limited like the d40/d60. So you'd have to option to buy a 40 year old 50mm f/1.4 lens and use that. My point here is that SLRs need not cost more then a P&S

[Smileyguy]

Thanks a million Chris, that's really useful.

I suppose my main reason for leaning towards a point & shoot is that I kind of want a camera I can use for 1) taking short video clips and 2) carrying around reasonably easily, as I could really do with both of the above functions for blogging. I was hoping to combine the above functions with something I could learn the ropes with, but if it's the case that what I can learn with a P&S is really limited I'll reconsider.

If I get a Nikon D50, am I going to be needing a better camera body in a year's time if I start to take photography a whole lot more seriously or is it something I can work with and build up for years?

thanks again.

[Techhie]

If I get a Nikon D50, am I going to be needing a better camera body in a year's time if I start to take photography a whole lot more seriously or is it something I can work with and build up for years?

thanks again.

If you are like me, an already outdated camera will not last you 3+ years. The shutter on that model is sub-par as it is, and the flash is known to go bad. If you are looking to get endurance from a DSLR, you will have to fork over a bit more money.

[Smileyguy]

That's one reason I was thinking of getting a good P&S, learning as much as possible with it, and then waiting until I had enough cash to get a really good DSLR - particularly as I've heard something really suitable for nature photography costs $$$$.

[iTiki]

Nikon D40, new or factory referb. Pass on the P&S if you are serious about learning and want to be able to expand lens choices down the road.

[Ruahrc]

Depends on what kind of nature photography you're after and what you define "suitable" to be. Getting gallery-level shots of birds requires a lot of skill and also generally requires expensive equipment (like $10,000-15,000 range) but you can get some great wall hangers after putting in maybe $1000 or so into a longer lens and time to work on technique. Things like macro can be done rather cheaply with some simple extension tubes (less than $100) and landscape photography is also among the "cheapest" nature style photography where a decent tripod (say around $300 investment) is really the only truly key equipment.

Sounds like right now portability is of big enough concern for you that I would suggest you think hard about starting with an SLR. Get a P&S or perhaps one of those "in-betweeners" like the Olympus EP1 or Panasonic GH1 (GX1?) (although I think these are outside your stated budget). If you are really serious about learning photography I would look for a P&S camera that has competent shooting modes, for example make sure it has a full manual, aperture priority, and shutter priority modes. If you get too low end of a P&S and can't have much manual control you would probably learn more by just buying a book on photography and reading it through.

Good luck with your search

Ruahrc

[jampat]

If you pick up a used older DSLR, you can sell it for almost the same price in a few years when you sell it. I don't know Nikon as well, but in Canon, the 10D, 20D, 30D and 40D are all similar cameras (with evolutionary improvements), introduced in 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2007. Currently used they are going for ~$250, ~$350, ~$400, ~700. If you buy a 20D or 30D, you can get two years of use for less than $100/yr. If you buy a 40D, the first few years will likely cost you more than $100/yr. Most of the mid level DSLR's are rated for ~100,000 shutter actuations and most get sold with between 1,000 and 20,000, there is still lots of life in them.

Point and Shoots typically have very little value on the used market. You will lose most of your investment (there are exceptions such as the Canon G series, and some Lumix and Nikon PnS's) if you decide to sell. You will have movie mode and if you get a superzoom, a much larger variation in focal lengths than you will with a similarly priced SLR.

Almost any camera is good enough to learn with. Even most PnS's now come with manual mode and flash and exposure compensation. For learning, you will find very little difference between the newest and greatest DSLR's and a 5 year old body. All DSLR's make adjusting settings much easier than with a PnS and the effect of changing settings is more apparent due the the larger sensor. If movie mode is critical, you will have trouble getting a DSLR with your budget.

Basically it comes down to
a) what are you going to shoot most often (both type of shot ie. portraits, nature, macro, architecture . . ., and where ie. inside with natural light, daylight hours only . . .) If low light performance is important, the oldest crappiest DSLR should blow away almost any PnS (there really is no substitute for sensor size)
b) what focal lengths do you need. This one is harder to think about without playing with a camera. Basically shorter focal lengths allow wider shots, but distort the image more (this can be good or bad) and longer focal lengths don't allow you to get as much in the frame, but provide a pleasing compression of the image (look online for wide-angle vs telephoto for more on this)
c) do you think this will be a hobby that you will want to invest more in in the future. It is easy to buy a flash or lens for a DSLR that will fit on almost any other DSLR by the same manufacturer, most PnS have specific accessories for each model.

Personally, I would buy something like the Canon 20D, it was a mid level body when it was introduced and I find it much easier to use than the Rebel which was the consumer level camera. The 20D gives you a 2nd LCD display that shows you the camera settings at a glance and a second control dial (very very helpful, the rebel requires menus to access the second control). I am not a Nikon guy, but it looks like there is a similar situation with the D50/D40.

Buy a kit lens to start (18-55 mm should be ~$100) and see what you like/don't like. Almost any problem can be solved with different (and normally better) glass, very few problems are solved with a different body.

You may decide you need a longer focal length, buy a used lens, if you like it, keep it, if you don't, sell it, it probably cost you nothing if you are keeping track of market value for lenses. You may decide you want to shoot in lower light, buy a faster lens (normally a prime as they let in more light than zooms and are typically cheaper as long as you avoid the top of the range) or a flash and practice with bounce flash or off camera flash. All of these problems are hard (or impossible) to solve with a PnS.

Now a DSLR is bigger and less likely to be carried with you all the time and more likely to get you mugged. Everything is a tradeoff, the crappiest camera in your pocket is better than the best camera in the world at home if you see a shot you want.

Good luck, let us know what you end up with.

[splitpea]

The P&S cameras that will give you a chance to really understand exposure, depth of field, etc will be nearly as large as a DSLR with a small kit lens, and they still won't have very accessible controls compared to a DSLR. You're probably better off getting an older secondhand DSLR plus a small inexpensive P&S.

[Balin64]

I would suggest, like others have, a used dSLR: like the Nikon D70s with the 18-70 lens. Then when you learn it, start buying Nikon F-Mount lenses and learn to manual-focus. Amazing...

[Winni]

Buy a used Pentax K10D or K20D with an "always-on"-lense (18-200mm). That's more than you'll need to get you started and it'll last you a couple of years.

When you have the money left, get Aperture. That's Apple's real killer app for digital photography.

[AlaskaMoose]

I would advise that if you are getting into digital SLR photography to at least buy something as one of these:

-Canon 30D
-Canon 40D
-Nikon D90

[Smileyguy]

Thanks for all the really great advice everyone.

I'm much more open to getting a DSLR now, however if I am going to get one it will need to be something on the cheap end of the scale, so probably an older model as has been suggested. As was pointed out, if I am serious about getting into nature photography I'll need to spend a lot of money on a better camera in future so don't want to splash too much cash now (I don't have it anyway!). Plus I still want to get a P&S so will need to save money for that.

A few DSLRs have already been suggested above.

Canon 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D
Nikon D40, D70, D90
Pentax K10D, K20D

So which of these or any other models should I be looking at? Most crucially, which will be the cheapest while still offering good quality and enabling me to learn?

Another question: what's the story with manual focus? Can I learn/use it with any DSLR or do I need a special camera/gear? Do any P&S cameras feature manual focus?

[Gatteau]

Thanks for all the really great advice everyone.

I'm much more open to getting a DSLR now, however if I am going to get one it will need to be something on the cheap end of the scale, so probably an older model as has been suggested. As was pointed out, if I am serious about getting into nature photography I'll need to spend a lot of money on a better camera in future so don't want to splash too much cash now (I don't have it anyway!). Plus I still want to get a P&S so will need to save money for that.

A few DSLRs have already been suggested above.

Canon 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D
Nikon D40, D70, D90
Pentax K10D, K20D

So which of these or any other models should I be looking at? Most crucially, which will be the cheapest while still offering good quality and enabling me to learn?

Another question: what's the story with manual focus? Can I learn/use it with any DSLR or do I need a special camera/gear? Do any P&S cameras feature manual focus?

Take a look at the D5000, too.

[jampat]

I would avoid the 10D, there were significant advances in the 20D. When I bought my 20D 3 years ago, I didn't want a 10D. 40D will destroy your budget. For Canon, I would get a 20D or 30D and spend the rest on glass. I can't comment on your Nikon/Pentax choices, lots of people use them and love them, I just don't know anything about them.

All of the cameras you are looking at will take decent pictures and allow you to learn and grow. The newer cameras (40D and up with Canon) allow you to use live view which can be handy if the camera is at an awkward angle, but for the price jump from 30D to 40D you could buy a PnS with live-view and video mode.

Most people select a brand based on the lenses available fitting what they want and the feel in their hand. Personally Canon bodies (xxD series) fit better in my hand than the Nikons at the time and the Canon AF at the time worked better for me when I was trying cameras than the Nikon, so I ended up with Canon.

If you are just buying a body and kit lens used, assuming you pay fair market value for it, you can sell it and switch systems for almost zero cost if you don't like it. Once you start acquiring lenses, flashes, remotes . . . switching can become much more expensive and a huge pain in the ass.

All DSLR lenses allow (or require in some cases) manual focus. Some PnS's have pseudo manual focus, you focus in steps by pushing buttons on the back of the camera, it's very frustrating and far from ideal.

[splitpea]

All DSLR lenses allow (or require in some cases) manual focus.

Not entirely true -- the Canon 50mm/f1.8 II is a prominent counterexample. That said, it's true of the vast majority of (D)SLR lenses.

As a beginner, I still think you won't get a huge amount out of the more advanced features of the newer cameras, and the money you save can buy better lenses. The biggest advance in newer bodies (other than live view) is that they're more forgiving in terms of exposure -- which means you'll get good results more easily, but also won't force you to hone your skills in quite the same way.

That said, do you have particular things you're planning on photographing? You'll want to focus on different features for sports vs. portraiture vs. insects vs. landscapes, etc...

[compuwar]

Not entirely true -- the Canon 50mm/f1.8 II is a prominent counterexample.

While it doesn't have a full-time manual focus mode, the 50mm f/1.8II still allows manual focusing on its tiny front knurled focus ring. Granted, most reviews call it useless feature-wise but it's at least allowed.

[compuwar]

So which of these or any other models should I be looking at? Most crucially, which will be the cheapest while still offering good quality and enabling me to learn?


You should pick a brand and then get either a used or low-end model for that brand. Because in-brand ergonomics are similar, it will help you build up intuitive shooting for things like birds-in flight. It will also allow you to grow your lens collection over time so that you're not reselling and re-buying the same coverage over again down the road. A lens is generally good for 10-15 years.

If you're looking at birds, then really there is one primary consideration- will you ever have the constitution to get a large, highly expensive 400mm-600mm prime and shoot with it? That means getting a large gimball tripod head and lugging around ~15lbs of tripod, a camera body or two, 12+ lbs of lens, and probably 10-20lbs of other gear.

If so, Canon is fiscally the way to go if you can deal with the ergonomics of their cameras. If not, Nikon's 200-400VR is unmatched in terms of IQ/portability.

Realistically, you're not going to find a supertelephoto deal for any other brand- where there is a reasonable used market for Nikon's (because they've only added image stabilization to some of them recently) and a sparse but existent market for the Canons.

Most of the other vendors don't even offer a 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4, and for the few that do, they're insanely expensive even on the used market if you can find one.

I primarily shoot with a Nikon 400mm f/2.8 lens and have 1.4x and 1.7x teleconverters that give me a 560/4 and 680/4.8. If I hadn't gotten a really good deal on a pristine used 400mm, I'd have switched to Canon at the time because I could have bought a brand new camera body for the price difference between the Nikon and Canon 400/2.8s. With the newer cameras, a 200-400/4 is a viable option, even with a 1.4x TC though you'll lose some depth of field control with the slower lens (more than your subject will be i focus more of the time.)

With all that said, Nikon's entry level deals tend to be better than Canon's so if you're back-loading the costs, Nikon is generally cheaper to start out with though Canon's starting to improve there (Nikon's gained market share against Canon because of it's' low-priced entry-level bodies and up until a couple of years ago the difference in image quality from kit lenses was hands-down a Nikon win- it's more or less even these days.)

If your ultimate goal is to end up doing significant bird/wildlife photography, then your flashes, lenses and teleconverters should all match whichever vendor you intend to end up with, otherwise you'll just end up eating the depreciation for no real benefit since both Canon and Nikon have good entry-level and used platforms that will get you were you need to go.

Paul

[ChrisA]

I suppose my main reason for leaning towards a point & shoot is that I kind of want a camera I can use for 1) taking short video clips and 2) carrying around reasonably easily, as I could really do with both of the above functions for blogging.

Then you want to make snapshoot. Buy The P&S.

The difference is that in one case you are out doing "something else" and you find something you want to record, either for memory or to show some one who is not there. That is the definition of "snap shoot"

In the other case to have an image in your mind, some ideas yo want to express and you go out specifically to create that image. This is what profesional photographers do and what fine art photographers do. In this case the primary activity is not "something else". It is Image makeing

So Like I said above: If the goal is the latter (image making) get an SLR, even if you have to buy a used one. But if the goal is just to have a camera with you in case you see something buy the P&S.

You will find if you ask around that most serious photographers own more than one camera. I have a little P&S, and underwater system, SLR and video. One camera can't do everything well.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I used to have a Pentax K10D, that was one hell of a camera! Weather sealed, built extremely robustly, very ergonomic, easy to navigate menus, awesome used lens selection, and the price was right, even when new. All that and it had the same sensor as the Nikon D80 which was it's cheif competitor at the time. I'd think you could snag one of these for about $400-$500 these days. As for a lens, there are tons of options for an only lens. I had the kit 18-55 and it wasn't too bad, I also had a 50 f/1.4 and it stayed on the camera about 95% of the time. The other lens I got some use out of was a 28-80 zoom that was OK.

Either way, this camera will take you a long way into photography. Some have used this camera to do high end professional fashion work even. (google Benjamin Kanarek, he used the K10D exclusively last time I had any contact with him).

I'd give it some real consideration.

SLC

[ChrisA]

Another question: what's the story with manual focus? Can I learn/use it with any DSLR or do I need a special camera/gear? Do any P&S cameras feature manual focus?

Some background...

Almost all SPR lenses have the ability to be manually focused. But most of the low end glass has only a thin plastic ring with very, poor "fee" and just as bad, the view finders in the SLR body are not set up with focus aids like the older cameras were so it is hard to see by eye if the image is in perfect focus

Many years ago all lenses were manual focus. They were built with very, very good focus rings that were large and had excellent "feel" and were crafted from solid brass and glass. They were built as well as a Rolex watch and cost about as much too. few "normal" people could afford to buy a Nikon. Almost everyone bought cheaper brands.

Very few modern lenses match the build quality of those older manual focus lenses. Optically they are as good and a few are better.

But at least with the Nikon (and Pentax) brand you can stiff mount a 1960's vintage lens t a new SLR body. I do this sometimes My macro lens in manual and my 105mm is not duplicated yet by any AF lens.

All that said, I rarely use manual focus any more. I do use it only in cases where the automatic focus system is confused. Mostly that is macro photography and some cases with animals. But mostly there are tricks you can use to coax better performance from the automatic focus system, such as finding another subject at the same didtance that has more contrast. AF works mostly pretty good.

[apfhex]

You will find if you ask around that most serious photographers own more than one camera. I have a little P&S, and underwater system, SLR and video. One camera can't do everything well.
I agree.

I don't have a DSLR (yet! my next camera...) but my Canon G7 is even too bulky to carry around unless I'm specifically taking photos. You know what they always say, the best camera is the one you have with you. The iPhone 3GS has actually proved to be very valuable because of it's surprisingly good camera — it makes a better quick P&S than any real compact P&S would because I always have it on me.

More constrictive/basic hardware can force you to be more creative with your photos. OTOH there are going to be shots that you just can't capture right with anything less than a DSLR or the like. Definitely if you're goal is "image making" like ChrisA says, DSLR seems the way to go.

If you do opt for a compact P&S though, I'd recommend at least finding one with full manual A/S/M controls. This might be contradictory to my previous paragraph but I think if you're spending money for any "real" camera, it should have these, lest it feel too limited (also my G7 has a manual focus option which I've found pretty nice to have, mostly for macro).

[daimos]

Panasonic Lumix GF1
The size of P&S, and the quality of DSLR. The technology is new, so the price is high. However, you don't have to buy 2 cameras.
There are a lot of reviews on the net (samples in youtube).
Ultimately, it is your decision. enjoy your gadget.

[compuwar]

the view finders in the SLR body are not set up with focus aids like the older cameras were so it is hard to see by eye if the image is in perfect focus

However, many DSLRs have focus indicators which work very well. For instanece, Nikon's high-end bodies have an arrow to tell you which way to turn the focus ring and a dot to tell you when you're in focus- I actually find it quicker than the old split screen indicators my film cameras used. I tend to do about 90% manual focus for studio work and 90% autofocus for field work these days.

[El Cabong]

So here's some basic info on what I'm looking for.[...]The kind of photography I most want to learn most: Nature (landscape/wildlife) and documentary/photojournalism
[...]
What I want from the camera:

Good quality photos, good zoom (x10 optical would be ideal considering I want to play around with nature stuff)

Good video-capturing capabilities

Enough manual function that I can learn as much as possible from using it. This is crucial.

Not too big - obviously I don't expect something tiny considering all the above, but something I can carry easily is a big advantage because if I get an SLR in future I'd like this camera to revert to being a family unit/ something I can carry around easily

If I'm just looking for too much please tell me - the most crucial thing really is learning manual functions.



So which of these or any other models should I be looking at? Most crucially, which will be the cheapest while still offering good quality and enabling me to learn?

Another question: what's the story with manual focus? Can I learn/use it with any DSLR or do I need a special camera/gear? Do any P&S cameras feature manual focus?

You are probably are asking for too much. It's hard to do photojournalism AND nature with the same lenses. However, going the DSLR route will allow you to do either of them optimally, given the right equipment, whereas with a P&S, you'd be lucky to do one adequately. A few P&S cameras offer both manual focus and manual control: the Canon G10/G11 and the Panasonic LX3 are probably the favorites of the current crop of compacts. However, the manual controls on a compact are clunky and difficult compared to those on an SLR. On the other hand...

Can anyone who's used one recommend the Canon Powershot S90? It apparently has easy-to-use manual controls in a compact body with a bright lens, something that has been sorely lacking in the compact camera market. I know that Ken Rockwell loves it, but all evidence also indicates that Ken Rockwell loves huffing paint thinner.

I'd go for a DSLR. I'd forget about the video, as that will reduce your cost significantly. If you decide not to forget about the video, I'll add that the Panasonic LX3 takes pretty good 720p video. Also, as far as size, I'd not recommend the Olympus E-P1, since, despite its pretty looks, by all accounts its autofocus is crap.

ACTUAL CAMERA/LENS SUGGESTION: Used D50 + 50mm f/1.8 lens. Saves you money, teaches you how to use a camera without being distracted by uneccessary things like video and megapixels, and with a fixed lens that (1) will give you better practice in framing shots than a zoom lens and (2) has a large aperture ideal for portraits and low-light shooting.

[Ruahrc]

ACTUAL CAMERA/LENS SUGGESTION: Used D50 + 50mm f/1.8 lens. Saves you money, teaches you how to use a camera without being distracted by uneccessary things like video and megapixels, and with a fixed lens that (1) will give you better practice in framing shots than a zoom lens and (2) has a large aperture ideal for portraits and low-light shooting.

It should be said that it only takes a small amount of self discipline to learn how to frame shots with a zoom. Just don't move the zoom ring! If you can't make the effort to learn to frame with a zoom, will you have the discipline to "zoom with your feet" when only using a prime?

Also I would say that getting a DX camera with only a 50mm prime might be too limiting in that 50mm (75mm equivalent) is a bit long for most photography. Perhaps a wider prime, but the 50mm is really more of a portrait lens on DX than a general fast prime.

Ruahrc

[Smileyguy]

This thread has been really, really useful. Thanks a lot everyone.

A few things I'd like to point out that could be useful.

1) I am very serious about getting into nature photography in a major way. By this, I have a few things in mind - 1) general landscape stuff 2) large wildlife 3) smaller critters too. I don't expect to be able to do all of this perfectly with my first camera, of course, I just want to learn. I do have this notion of trying to create really up-close, vivid & anatomically detailed shots of things like seashells or dead insects though, call me crazy.

2) I'm interested in a host of other forms of photography too - street photography and photojournalism particularly, architectural stuff too. Again I don't expect my first camera to be able to do all this brilliantly, I just want something adequate that I can learn the ropes of different disciplines with.

3) I have no idea whether to go Nikon or Canon, and my decision will probably come down to browsing internet reviews and comparing prices. Any suggestions would be really welcome. splitpea, in reading your post on the previous page am I correct in thinking you think both brands are relatively even and have their advantages and disadvantages for nature photography?

4) Should I just start with a basic kit lense for whatever camera I buy or should I seek something different (trying to spend as little cash as possible here remember)

5) If I'm looking for a cheap-ish P&S with a good optical zoom, good video & small size, what should I consider?

Thanks again for all the help.

lenny

[splitpea]

I do have this notion of trying to create really up-close, vivid & anatomically detailed shots of things like seashells or dead insects though, call me crazy.

This is called macro photography. Not all lenses are capable of focusing on something that close, so you would need to look for macro capability when selecting lenses for this work.

3) I have no idea whether to go Nikon or Canon, and my decision will probably come down to browsing internet reviews and comparing prices. Any suggestions would be really welcome. splitpea, in reading your post on the previous page am I correct in thinking you think both brands are relatively even and have their advantages and disadvantages for nature photography?

I don't recall saying anything about the brands, but my opinion is that despite the holy wars both lines have equipment that's excellent for nearly all types of photography. Certainly you're unlikely to hit the limits of either line in any area any time soon.

4) Should I just start with a basic kit lense for whatever camera I buy or should I seek something different (trying to spend as little cash as possible here remember)

That's what I would recommend (the kit lens). After you've been shooting a while you'll have a better sense of what you need your lenses to do that the kit lens won't (whether that's wider angles, longer telephoto, wider apertures, closer macro focus) and be able to look for more specialized lenses.

Whatever you end up selecting, best of luck!

[yaroldb]

I would not rule Olympus out. You can buy a dual kit lens plus camera for $499 right now at B&H. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/601219-REG/Olympus_262090_E_System_E_520_SLR_Digital.html) This gives you the full range of 14mm-150mm (28mm-300mm). I used to have this camera and gave it to my wife. I've taken some great shots with it. The kit lens is one of the best on the market for the price. Also, if you want to jump into doing Macro, you have a few lens to pick from, the cheapest being the super sharp 35mm f3.5. If you want a fast prime, the 25mm f2.8 just got praises from Pop Photo. I've seen both lens for under $200 each. If you decide to stick with Olympus, they have a great line of lens and cost a lot less than the Nikon or Canon equivalent. Canon and Nikon seem have always run the market, but Olympus is a great system to learn on. Can they compete with something like a D-700 or D-3. No, but that is not the Olympus market.

[El Cabong]

I would not rule Olympus out. [...] If you decide to stick with Olympus, they have a great line of lens and cost a lot less than the Nikon or Canon equivalent. Canon and Nikon seem have always run the market, but Olympus is a great system to learn on. Can they compete with something like a D-700 or D-3. No, but that is not the Olympus market.

I would have agreed with this before Olympus (and Panasonic) jumped into the Micro-Four Thirds market. Reviews state that "legacy" 4/3 lenses have a lot of trouble focusing on the new E-P1 and G1/GH1/GF1 bodies, and many don't at all. Even the new micro-4/3 lenses notoriously struggle on the E-P1.

The problem is that by pushing forward with new technology, the two companies have essentially made orphans of an entire line of lenses, giving buyers the choice between investing in a dead-end camera format (4/3) or in a relatively new one (micro-4/3) that is still working out its kinks and has an extremely limited selection of lenses designed for it.

It's nothing against Olympus, per se. Differences between image quality between camera manufacturers these days is fairly negligible, and Olympus certainly knows how to make lenses (not to mention that Panasonic/Leica lenses will probably fill in the micro-4/3 gaps that Olympus misses, in time). However, for the reasons stated above, I'd be wary of jumping onto the Olympus bandwagon, at least for now.

[compuwar]

This thread has been really, really useful. Thanks a lot everyone.

A few things I'd like to point out that could be useful.

1) I am very serious about getting into nature photography in a major way. By this, I have a few things in mind - 1) general landscape stuff 2) large wildlife 3) smaller critters too. I don't expect to be able to do all of this perfectly with my first camera, of course, I just want to learn. I do have this notion of trying to create really up-close, vivid & anatomically detailed shots of things like seashells or dead insects though, call me crazy.


Nikon's terminonlogy for lenses which focus close up and allow 1:1 reproduction is "Micro" in their lens names. The general photography term is "Macro." Generally if you're really serious about macro photography it'll involve a specialized lens (and those lenses are really good at close distances and generally ok to good at longer ones in terms of absolute quality- you'll likely be happy either way.) Nikon sells a 105mm, 60mm, 85mm (DX) and 200mm today, and has in the past sold other lengths.

The longer the lens the more "working distance" you have between yourself and the subject. Only the 200mm f/4 won't AF in normal/macro usage on the low-end bodies but it's expensive and not all that easy to find anyway.

Tamron also makes a *very* good 90mm macro that's arguably as good as any macro made by any manufacturer and the ones made in the last few years will focus on any Nikon body. Sigma makes some "macro" lenses, but they're generally zooms that don't do "true" macro.

Other accessories that are useful with macro are ring flashes and focusing rails- but even one of the cheesy-looking plastic bounce-around-the-lens flash attachments will give you enough light control to be useful.

Wildlife is a compromise between lens length, speed and distance to the bird or animal. It's expensive to do right, about the best compromise you can get for relatively bright light is the Sigma 50-500mm lens, though you can get ok results with something like the 70-300, you may need to work on approach skills with only 300mm.

People generally recommend wide to ultra-wide lenses for landscapes, and you can certainly go that way- though I've recently seen some really nice landscapes done on full frame with a 125mm lens- and you can stitch. I have everything from 10-400mm on DX and 20-400mm on FX and I find that I tend to like 35mm for general landscape work. Nikon has a pretty inexpensive 35mm DX prime.


2) I'm interested in a host of other forms of photography too - street photography and photojournalism particularly, architectural stuff too. Again I don't expect my first camera to be able to do all this brilliantly, I just want something adequate that I can learn the ropes of different disciplines with.


Again, it's the lenses, not the camera that makes the difference. I tend to like 20mm for architecture, but if I were to shoot it seriously, I'd be spending big money on a tilt/shift lens or (more likely) a set of bellows to correct perspective and change the focal plane. PJ can be done with pretty-much any lens- depends on how close or far away you need to be.


3) I have no idea whether to go Nikon or Canon, and my decision will probably come down to browsing internet reviews and comparing prices. Any suggestions would be really welcome. splitpea, in reading your post on the previous page am I correct in thinking you think both brands are relatively even and have their advantages and disadvantages for nature photography?


I shoot fine art nature. I shoot Nikon. If you're absolutely not going to rule out shooting birds and down the road can see getting a 400, 500, or 600mm prime lens (and you're looking at $4000-8000+ new for one of the big guns) then Canon is the way to go- the price differences are still in the "buy a camera body" range between them an Nikon. If you're not ever going to fork out more than ~$3000 for a lens, then the differences are pretty immaterial. Nikon's 200-400VR (~$6000) is unique in its size/image quality and would be another reason to go with the dark side.

Sigma has a 300/2.8 that's not quite the same quality, but also not quite the same price as the Canon/Nikon brands, so if you're looking at sports pick a brand and compare that to the C/N alternatives.


4) Should I just start with a basic kit lense for whatever camera I buy or should I seek something different (trying to spend as little cash as possible here remember)


It depends on what your goals are. If it's to learn photography, that works, if it's to learn macro photography, a macro lens is less of a compromise than the *much cheaper* alternatives of diopters, reversing rings or extension tubes- rings and tubes are probably not going to work on "G" type Nikon lenses and newer cameras, but good-quality diopters are still relatively cheap.


5) If I'm looking for a cheap-ish P&S with a good optical zoom, good video & small size, what should I consider?

Thanks again for all the help.

lenny

Dunno, I don't do P&S cameras.

Paul

[Jaiden]

I would suggest reading through these topics:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=813948
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=822276

They both have similar questions to yours, with some decent advice in the replies.

- Jaiden

[Smileyguy]

Hi everyone,

I need to make a decision soon about what to buy, and I'm leading towards a Nikon D40 for price reasons. I've been looking principally at the Canon 20d & 30d and the Nikon d40 & d50 as they seem to be the cheapest DSLR cameras out there. There's no lense included but what does everyone think of this is as potential purchase: http://cgi.ebay.ie/Nikon-D40-Digital-6MP-SLR-Camera-Body-Charger_W0QQitemZ300372648269QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN?has h=item45ef9ae14d

My budget has tightened even further since I first posted, and the above sort of represents my price range (without lens). How much should I be expecting to pay for a lens?

Are there any other old model DSLR camers I should be consider in the $350-$500 price range (€200-350) (if I'm at the upper end of this I'd want a lens included)

Some other possibilities:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B000KIX65S/ref=sr_1_olp_1?ie=UTF8&s=gateway&qid=1259706312&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B0009U5VQO/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&qid=1259706387&sr=8-1&condition=used

Any advice/suggestions?

The Canon 20d/30d seem a bit more expensive than the nikon d40 and d50, hence why I'm leaning towards the Nikons.

[SLC Flyfishing]

The Canon 20d/30d seem a bit more expensive than the nikon d40 and d50, hence why I'm leaning towards the Nikons.

The Canon 20D and 30D are in a different league than the D40 or D50. You might pay more but you're definitely getting more camera there.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with a D40 or D50, nothing at all. But with the Canon you'll get a stronger camera body, probably faster AF, certainly more AF points, and faster frame rate. That 30D was a great body at the time! I have to admit I envied it when I was shooting Pentax.

SLC

[Smileyguy]

Would anyone recommend that Canon EOS 1000D? The price on this is great (it's secondhand) and the seller is very near me:

http://www.adverts.ie/showproduct.php?product=166047&cat=51

[jampat]

The 1000D is ok, but not in the same league as the 20D/30D. It has fewer screens and buttons and more functions controlled by menus. That being said, if it fits your budget, it is a good place to start, you can get some great pictures with it (the kit lens if kept around f8 is actually pretty good, it just really needs a lot of light).

[Smileyguy]

So it wouldn't be the best for shots at dusk or at night?

[JKitterman]

Pick an entry model Canon or Nikon body and get a 50mm f1.8 lens. This will be your most flexible for learning and about the cheapest entry.

[Smileyguy]

I'm between a Canon EOS 1000D and a Nikon D40 - leaning towards the Canon because there are some reputable sellers on eBay selling it at good prices. I know I won't get to play with it first, but I can live with that for a big price saving.

And suggestions or advice based on the above?

[compuwar]

I'm between a Canon EOS 1000D and a Nikon D40 - leaning towards the Canon because there are some reputable sellers on eBay selling it at good prices. I know I won't get to play with it first, but I can live with that for a big price saving.

And suggestions or advice based on the above?

D40 with the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens.

[Smileyguy]

Is that the kit lens?

[jampat]

Is that the kit lens?

No. Kit lens is 18-55. The lens Paul recommended will let in a ton more light (and actually capture really nice pictures). The 35 mm will be about 3 stops faster than the kit lens (so if you are shooting in the evening, your shutter speed can be 1/30 instead of 1/4 for example). You trade zoom for light gathering (and I suspect the 35 mm will be about double the price of the kit lens, although still relatively cheap).

[SLC Flyfishing]

I second the suggestion of the D40 and AF-S DX 35 mm f/1.8

Stellar combination.

SLC

[compuwar]

If you have the money to get the body AND kit lens without forgoing the 35mm, then by all means do it. If it's a choice between the kit and the 35mm, get the 35mm- you can pick up a cheap zoom when money's good again.

Each stop of light is doubling or half the light necessary for an equivalent exposure. You can shoot landscapes and people, day and night with the 35mm and start saving up for a macro or zoom.

This is the equivalent of a "standard" 50mm lens on a full-frame camera which was the only lens many people owned with their SLRs for the first 20-30 years that SLRs were available.

Paul

[Smileyguy]

Thanks.

Based on a really quicky scan of prices though it seems that the kit lens is a fair bit cheaper - especially when packaged with the d40 - than the 35mm. Perhaps I should buy the D40 with kit and then save for the 35mm. Anyway I think to some extent my purchase will be dictated by the best deal I can find - going to ring a few camera shops today and see if they have anything cheap/ second hand. Might try to play with a couple models even if I am going to buy online, though I feel bad about doing that!

[Smileyguy]

A local camera shop is selling a used EOS 350D for a very very good price with a 18-55MM lens.

A used 400D as well going for not too much more.

Any thoughts on these?

[splitpea]

A local camera shop is selling a used EOS 350D for a very very good price with a 18-55MM lens.

A used 400D as well going for not too much more.

Any thoughts on these?

Both of those are consumer-grade cameras, but will take good pictures and be good starter cameras. The 18-55, similarly, is a decent starter lens, although not brilliant, and it won't handle low light well. The 50/1.8 is a better choice for low-light shooting or if you just want something that will be sharper and better complement a prosumer/pro level camera once you're ready to move on.

I recommend doing a bit of research about the cameras you're considering. This site (http://www.dpreview.com) has in-depth reviews of pretty much every DSLR released in the past decade.

[Smileyguy]

Thanks splitpea. The fact that I can go into the shop and try this EOS 350D is one advantage over ordering something else (a D40, EOS 1000D or 20d for example) online, plus this will come with a six month warranty.

I don't really mind if the kit lens is only okay - my birthday's just around the corner so I can always ask for another one then. :)

I just want something to learn with and that will grow with me as I learn for a couple of years - then if I'm really serious I can buy something better. Might leave work early and go play with this 350D.

[splitpea]

Thanks splitpea. The fact that I can go into the shop and try this EOS 350D is one advantage over ordering something else (a D40, EOS 1000D or 20d for example) online, plus this will come with a six month warranty.

Good thinking. Nothing quite compares to being able to hold it in your hand, feel the camera's balance, where the controls are placed, etc.

One thing I would check for is that you can see and adjust your settings for shutter speed, aperture, and white balance using controls on the outside of the camera -- without having to go into menus at all. The first two, in particular, you'll want to be able to adjust while you compose your shot without having to take your eyes off your subject: their controls should rest under your fingers and the settings and metered exposure should be displayed in the viewfinder.

Another feature that the best DSLRs have that some of the consumer models don't is that regardless of what else you're doing with the camera (e.g. reviewing photos in memory), the moment you half-depress the shutter button it will return to shooting mode without your having to do anything else to exit the menu. Helps you get some of those time-sensitive shots.

I just want something to learn with and that will grow with me as I learn for a couple of years - then if I'm really serious I can buy something better. Might leave work early and go play with this 350D.

I think that's a great attitude. A lot of people here are pushing for the pro cameras -- and they are indeed better cameras (they have a lot more options, are built more sturdily, have easier access to some controls, and can be more forgiving with exposure), but at this stage in your learning curve you're not likely to benefit much from the difference -- or even notice a lot of the differences. Some would even say that you'll learn more from the more limited camera that will force you to get your exposure just right.

[Smileyguy]

Thanks again, my final decision is coming down to, essentially:

A new Canon EOS 1000D / Rebel XS bought online, but I've played with one in the store very briefly, seems fine

Secondhand EOS 20D bought online but not tested by myself

An EOS 400D that's just slightly out of my price range, so would be a financial push that I'm reluctant to make

I seem to have discounted Nikons mainly because they seem a bit more expensive for equivalent models in the places I've checked, but buying a D40 or D60 online is still a possibility.

I'm thinking I may just go with the cheapest comfortable machine I can find and spend any extra cash on accessories.