Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Do I need a DSLR?

PlatinuM195 said:
I'm actually considering a DSLR myself. I'm not hugely into photography, but due to my job I'll probably be travelling quite a lot in the next few years and would love to take pictures.

I love photos taken with a nice depth of field or Bokeh effect and have tried these many times with my point-and-shoot but quality is nowhere near comparable to DSLRs I've seen due to the smaller sensor size.

Would a DSLR help much in this regard? (nice DOF and Bokeh etc.)
Click to expand...

absolutely definitely. 100 percent. If you just want to take snapshot and it'll be a fairly minor hobby, you could start with a base model, a 1000d or something.
Nice and small and light. Would fit you purposes well.For nice bokah you need a lens that is nice and bright, or has a large focal length.

The kit lens is fine for snapshots, and you'll be able to get nice dof. I will say again though about the 50mm1.8 . It's a prime lens so no 'zooming' but it's fast, gives nice bokeh, is sharp , very small and light and is great for portraits on a crop camera.
 
I AM THE MAN said:
But an amazing camera with crap lenses can be upgraded in the future with better lens.
Click to expand...

What is an amazing camera today will not be an amazing camera in the future (compared to other future cameras) ... but what is an amazing lens today will still be an amazing lens in the future.
I'm sure the Canon 30D was an amazing camera when it came out. Is it still an amazing camera, compared to the cameras of today? At around the same time Canon also released the 70-200mm f/4 L IS which is still an amazing lens today, by any standard.
 
I AM THE MAN said:
But an amazing camera with crap lenses can be upgraded in the future with better lens.
Click to expand...
To flip it around, an amazing lens on a crap body can be upgraded in the future with better bodies. Bodies are transient, lenses stay with you.

Case in point, my most loved lens is the Canon 85mm f/1.8, it was introduced in 1992. Another example is the Canon 50mm f/1.8 mk1 that I have, I've seen it go around auction sites for more than the newer mk2 version. Compare that with my 40D that I bought used for 350e, and when it was introduced it cost 1300e.
 
Go to the store. Play with both of them. Navigate the menus, push the buttons, change settings. Whichever one you feel is easier to use is the one you should get. Don't get bogged down in technicalities. If you hate the UI, you're never going to use the camera, so what's the point? The best camera in the world isn't worth squat if it's in a bag in your closet.

Case in point look at Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir. She uses a rebel xt or xti and creates breathtaking images. It's not the camera, it's definitely the photographer.
 
I love my T2i. If you don't care about the swivel LCD and aren't planning on shooting with external flash, definitely save your money and go with the T2i over the T3i, because image quality is going to be pretty much identical. If you're planning on doing a lot of low-light shooting, you might want to consider the Nikon, as it seems to perform better at high ISO.

And ditto the remarks about the importance of lenses. I almost exclusively shoot with my 35mm f/2.0 and 85mm f/1.8. It's inconvenient to have to foot zoom, and I have to use the kit lens for wide-angle shots, but the image quality and depth of field possibilities you get with these fast prime lenses is worth the slight inconvenience.
 
I just started getting into photography and bought a used Nikon D60 with a 18-70mm lens from a camera shop and spent less then 500 bucks. I think if you do enough searching you can get a DSLR on the cheap.
 
fireman32 said:
I just started getting into photography and bought a used Nikon D60 with a 18-70mm lens from a camera shop and spent less then 500 bucks. I think if you do enough searching you can get a DSLR on the cheap.
Click to expand...

What camera shop?
 
I have been shooting Canon DSLR's for about 3 years now. I'm not that familiar with the Rebel line, so I had to do a quick search to look at the differences between the T2i and T3i. After reading this link, it seems like the T3i just adds the articulating screen and some added video features. Looks like the T2i has enough features to warrant that over a T1i.

That said, I would go to Best Buy (or some other store that has displays out) and handle the Rebel next to the 60D next to the 7D. You haven't said what your budget is, but I'm guessing you won't want to jump in with a 7D as a first camera. Some people like the feel of the larger body (the 60D is now between the 7D and the Rebel.) If you like the feel of the 7D, you could find a used 50D or 40D, which are the same size. Everything above the Rebel gives you the thumb wheel, which is a pretty big change in ergonomics of the camera.

For lenses, I would suggest starting with the kit 18-55 (I hear the mark II IS model is quite capable) and maybe get the 50 f/1.8 ($125 on Amazon) From there, you can decide if you want something with more telephoto, faster (larger apertures) and at what focal lengths. The lenses are what you want to spend your money on more than the camera body. You can buy a quality lens and it will last forever and hold its value (or appreciate in value.) Technology in camera bodies changes every year, while lenses don't. Just start with what you can afford the feels right in your hand, like someone said earlier.

I would also echo getting Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. I started with that book and it helped me understand all the terminology and what different settings would do to my pictures. I shoot mostly in manual mode and really enjoy it.

Have fun and let us know what you decide.
 
blueroom said:
Many great photographers never had access to a DSLR, Ansel Adams...
Click to expand...

Well, the point is to have a camera you can manually control. Ansel Adams certainly could control aperture and shutter speed. He used an 8x10 camera with a glass plate negative--are you going to recommend that the OP do that?
 
Ryan1524 said:
LMAO. This describes nearly every new member coming on to the various photo forums I frequent. There's someone asking what to buy at least once a week.

If you think you might be serious about photography, jumping straight to the best is really the cheapest decision in the long run.
Click to expand...

I hadn't read that link. Very funny. While I didn't start in the basement like the example, I have gone through several lenses and often think "How cool would it be to just have 2 or 3 nice primes and nothing else?"
 
cupcakes2000 said:
In my mind, if you're gonna go with canon, maybe trace a second hand 50d, and couple it with a new niftyfifty.

This way, although you're gonna get an older camera, you'll also be getting one with more advanced features.


The 50d has over the 600d.....


It has a sealed, durable, much more pro body.

pentaprism v pentamirror.

1/8000 v 1/4000 shutterspeed.

6.3 v 3.7 fps.

the 600d has over the 50d...

It's newer.

Video recording v none.

Articulated screen (if that's what you want I suppose).

Has digital zoom.

18 mp v 15.1.

More screen pixels.


I think the 50d has more growing room, with semi pro specs. The 600d, whilst very nice, is much more consumer spec'd.

Also a 50mm f/1.8 lens v's The standard kit lens of the 600d. The difference is incomparable. It's a nice cheap fast prime. Every review raves about it. I have had several (they're a little breakable), and it's one of the lenses that's on my camera a lot. I think you could ask anyone and most would agree.

Using it, you'll be able to judge what lenses you require next.

If you did get good quickly, and you decided to freelance (re another post of yours). You could get away with a 50d way more than a 600d in looks and professionalism alone. Plus have more creative breathing room.


Heres a comparison table.......



http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos350d&products=canon_eos400d&products=canon_eos450d&products=canon_eos500d&products=canon_eos550d&products=canon_eos1100d&products=canon_eos600d&products=canon_eos50d
Click to expand...

To the TC, I actually think the above is very good advice UNLESS the articulated screen and HD movies is important to you. As a camera, the 50D represents a higher quality purchase, and im sure can be found relatively cheap.

Canon made some odd choices with the 60D following the 50D so if your looking at the 60D I would probably stump that little bit extra for the 7D, or spend less and go with the 50D. The 600D for me is too entry level, but only you can decide if its something you will stick with for years on end, or if you will get itchy feet and want to "progress" to the next level.
 
Hi everyone! I am trying to get into photography. Im looking to upgrade from a P&S to a DSLR. To be quite honest, I need some suggestions on cameras. To me, it does not matter how the camera "feels" in my hands, because I can personally adjust to anything. Thanks for your replies in advance.

P.S. It would be great if the camera shoots 1080p video (30fps), but not a necessity if the price is "too high"-like above $600.

I was wondering if the Megapixel makes a HUGE difference in quality when taking pictures on a DSLR. For an instance, if I wanted to purchase a 12mp camera over an 18mp camera (both DSLRS), obviously the 18mp would be better because of not only the megapixels, but the shutter speed, exposure features, etc (do not know too much about all the technicals just yet).

Bottom Line: Is there a noticable difference between 2 DSLR cameras, one camera having 6 extra megapixels?

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The short answer is no, MP don't really matter unless you're going to be printing extremely large prints. Megapixels really don't have anything to do with quality but rather the size of the images produced by the camera.
 
xMClass said:
The short answer is no, MP don't really matter unless you're going to be printing extremely large prints. Megapixels really don't have anything to do with quality but rather the size of the images produced by the camera.
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
For your price and 1080p requirement, the Canon Rebel T2i would be perfect. You can probably find an excellent condition used one for that price. As with DSLR's, it's really the lens where you'd end up spending more money.

I don't know if Nikon have anything that compares to the T2i features and price point. I'm not doubting it, it's just that I never kept up with their products. If Nikon does have a similar product, I'd say go for the brand that your closes friends use. That way, you can borrow and test each other's lenses.

Good luck!
 
NomadicTy said:
For your price and 1080p requirement, the Canon Rebel T2i would be perfect. You can probably find an excellent condition used one for that price. As with DSLR's, it's really the lens where you'd end up spending more money.

I don't know if Nikon have anything that compares to the T2i features and price point. I'm not doubting it, it's just that I never kept up with their products. If Nikon does have a similar product, I'd say go for the brand that your closes friends use. That way, you can borrow and test each other's lenses.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

Haha thank you! I really am considering a T2i. Just saving the money for it. Thanks for your reply.
 
Get the DSLR with the better lens. The quality of the glass in front of the sensor has more to do with the quality of your photo than the number of mega pixels. Buy the best lens you can afford, be it a Nikon or Cannon, and then find a body that you can use with it. A pro series Nikkor on a 6 mega pixels Nikon D70 will make great shots. Figure on about 1500 to 2000 for a good 28 to 70 F2.5 constant aperture lens and about 400 for a good used body.
 
I AM THE MAN said:
For an instance, if I wanted to purchase a 12mp camera over an 18mp camera (both DSLRS), obviously the 18mp would be better because of not only the megapixels, but the shutter speed, exposure features, etc (do not know too much about all the technicals just yet).
Click to expand...

Actually, all things considered, the higher-density sensor may be worse.

Higher densities make for smaller circles of confusion, leading to increased visible diffraction artifacts. They also require lenses that resolve better (poor lenses show their flaws sooner on higher-density sensors) and generally better technique and shutter speeds and will have worse noise characteristics given the same generation of sensors. Shutter speed and exposure have nothing to do with the sensor's pixel density and don't change from camera to camera other than the fact that sharpness may require a higher shutter speed on a more densely populated sensor-- so again, fewer megapixels may actually produce better results- a lot depends on what's being photographed.

Paul
 
What models are you looking at specifically? Have you researched them on the web?
 
No.

On some DSLRs, the lower MP count is favoured because it allows better ISO performance~
 
Better low-light performance

As a general rule, if two cameras have sensors of the same physical size, the one with the lower pixel count will have larger pixels, which means that more light will fall on each pixel. This results in better low-light capability, allowing you to use higher ISO settings before graininess starts to appear. You can think of it as being a 'faster' sensor. This is a general rule however, and is also dependant on the electronic wizardry supporting the sensor, which will vary from camera to camera.

Take for example, Canon's flagship cameras, the EOS 1D (16.1MP), a popular choice with sports photographers, where speed is required
and the EOS 1Ds (21MP), the weapon of choice for studio photographers, where the subject will generally be bathed in studio lights.
 
Last edited:
The answer is yes and no.

MP big time counts when you want to crop an image for instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back