Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I have a Canon EOS 20D, with 17–85mm f/4–5.6 (came with the body), 70–200mm f/2.8 IS, and 10–22mm f/3.5–4.5 (bought here on MacRumors) lenses. I'm not a professional photographer, but am very passionate about taking pictures and improving my skills. For example, this (northern) summer I will be going on a photography course/tour in the Australian outback, and am very much looking forward to it.

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

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

I am gathering a library of photography books. One that I would really recommend to you is Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson (currently $14.97 USD on Amazon). That book is very clearly written, and is quite extensive on theory and practice, both basic and slightly more advanced. You say it'll be a while before you buy any equipment. My recommendation is that you buy this book and read it now, so that you begin to get an idea of photographic technique, rather than continuing to think, 'I'll buy a really good (read: expensive) camera and will propter hoc take really good photographs'.

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

Of course, for the moment, I would recommend that you carry on using your point-and-shoot in any and all situations, experiment with framing, play with software, see what you can achieve as things currently stand.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Also, let's say I'm in a nightclub taking pictures - I'm hoping I can get stuff like this. :D

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

Don't buy into the Nikon better than fill in the blank argument from others. Most cameras in the same class are just as rugged as the next. I mean by this that all the cameras a working pro would choose from are all about the same when it comes to ruggedness. The same can probably be said for prosumer cameras. All fall roughly into the same build quality. I know there can be exceptions but for name brand stuff I would say this is generally true. Go to a camera shop and play with the stuff. Shop for the widest array of lenses to choose from. The camera body is simply a piece of the toolbox. Glass is where it is at. For instance some lenses you may like are only available in one system. The 10.5mm Nikkor for example. Some others have other examples of this. I use Nikon and Canon to earn a living and both do a good job. Sony just came out with a new prosumer model and Fuji makes a model that accepts Nikkor lenses. Read other review sites, ask around but nothing takes the place of good old hands on goofing around.
 
I still think a P&S like the Panasonic DMC-FZ50 would be perfect:



LINK



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

Plus, it's right around $500!
 
However, I would encourage you to learn as much as possible about the technical facets of (digital) photography, both in-camera (effective exposure, creative framing, shake, filters, flash—both on- and off-camera) and post-processing (the advantages of shooting raw over JPEG, creative effects in Photoshop, perhaps whether Aperture or Lightroom are suitable for you, etc.). By doing proper research into photography rather than just into equipment, you'll be in a far better position to appreciate how to achieve what you want to do.

Best advice on this thread. Period. And I second the Bryan Peterson recomendation.
 
Hey, just letting you guys know that these are the cameras I have currently, the sony and Kodak. I'm personally a very....antsy person, a little miserable and tend to want to rush things so I understand things take time. I'm young, what are you gonna do? :D The site I am working on is a big project so taking the time to get the book and learning. If it teaches me about what ISO really is etc then it's definitely something I should get.

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

I don't have the luxury of trying out these things and deciding so I'm really just trying to be sure of what to do. I don't want to be paying for $5000 in equipment that I don't need. But it'd be interesting if I could get nice looking pictures from these environments with the Panasonic DMC-FZ50. I'm going to try to assimilate all the info I've gotten in the thread (for a person like me who knows nothing on this, it's quite a lot) and I am going to be sure to ask more questions. Thanks again guys.
 
iso at 1600 actually performs better on the 350d canon. the CMOS system that canon has created is way better at high iso's than the nikons. read any review. thats why i chose the rebel!

Well, since I only suggested the Nikon D40, and you're suggesting the Canon 350D/400D because Canon is better than Nikons at handling noise......... read DPReview

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

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

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

I have to say that I am almost ready to make a purchase - and I think what I want is the Nikon D80. Why? Because of this blog post.



Look at the part of the article, examples, see where he was sitting and how much he had to zoom? That's basically what I need so I think the D80 with that lens is the way to go. Thoughts?
 
Okay, now I am seeing people are getting problems with that lense. The 18-200 seems to be better, (better zoom I imagine, but obviously is more expensive).

Can I get the D40 instead with the same Lenses? Are they not like the same thing?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.