DSLR for Beginner

[svejar]

I have the Digital rebel, and pretty much found myself in your position three months ago. I'll give you a rundown of what I've learned:

1) Get the kit lens. It's actually perfectly usable, and it provides 18mm (eq. to 28mm) which is an OK wide angle to start out with. Use it to learn WHAT you need.

2) Like others said - get the 50mm/f1.8. You simply cannot spend $70 any better way. It will help you take pictures in lowlight conditions without using the flash. Just get it. If you find that you hate it (you won't), you could always sell it for the same price you paid for it.

OK, so now you have two lenses. Use them, and find out which way to go later on. It will totally depend on what you want to do with your camera: do you need extra zoom, wide angle or normal lenses? Just remember one thing:

3) You have two options: prime lenses or zooms. A prime lense has a fixed focal length (no zoom). This may sound like a huge disadvantage, but usually it means you can get a cheaper lense, which also will be a lot faster (low f-number). A zoom gives you more flexibility, but a fast zoom lens will cost more. I've chosen to go with primes: I bought the 50mm/f1.4, and now I'm getting the Sigma 20mm/f1.8. After that i will probably buy a 24-28mm and a 35mm (take a look at the Canon EF 35mm/f2 - terrific value).

4) Some good web sites:
www.fredmiranda.com - THE place to pick up used lenses/equipment.
www.pbase.com/cameras - chose a manufacturer and you will get the option of viewing pictures taken with a specific lens. This will show you the differences in focal lengths, which was the hardest thing for me. It will help you decide what you need: a 20mm, 35mm, 400mm or a 17-40mm

5) Enjoy. Don't worry about megapixels or feel like an idiot when you pull out your camera. By all means carry it with you when you go places.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Some things about Sigma lenses in the Canon EF mount. Sigma does seem to have issues with some of their lenses as Canon releases new camera bodies. Lenses that have problems have to be sent in for a new chip, if that chip is available. On newer lenses it is not a problem. For older lenses the new chip may not be available. This can hurt resell down the road.

Tamron on the other hand has had very few problems in that regard. And they have a 18-200 lens due out very soon.

 

[iGary]

The 28-135 IS USM is a nice lens, and actually, the 18-55 lens is a wonderful piece of glass as well. The 28-135 was the lens that stayed on my camera 90% of the time until I bought the EF 24-70 f2.8L.

I started out with the Digital Rebel, and frankly, I was not impressed or happy with the onwership experience of that camera at all (and no flames
comments on dpreview) has horrible white balance and exposure issues.

Anyway, if you are buying this as a "starter" with the idea of moving on to bigger and better things (like I was) save up some extra money and buy the 20D. It's about half again as much, but the performance difference, and the quality of the images out of this camera are nothing short of stunning. There is no lag time for startup (.2 seconds - no more missed shots). I could go on, but look for yourself.

If you intend to get at all serious about your photography (and yes, there are people taking lovely, professional-level images with the Rebel) don't do what I did and end up selling the Rebel a year later.

Check out the 20D just for fun. Good luck!

 

[vtprinz]

I started out with the Digital Rebel, and frankly, I was not impressed or happy with the onwership experience of that camera at all (and no flames
comments on dpreview) has horrible white balance and exposure issues.

I agree, I hate the digital rebel, but the original poster said he was going to wait for the 350D or whatever they call the next upgrade. Because of the D70, I would think they'd upgrade it quite a bit.

 

[cwright]

I agree, I hate the digital rebel, but the original poster said he was going to wait for the 350D or whatever they call the next upgrade. Because of the D70, I would think they'd upgrade it quite a bit.

Correct, I won't be buying the current Digital Rebel... however as I'm a novice at best I probably wouldn't have any issues with the DRebel until farther down the road when I get more familiar with the camera.

I actually have enough money to buy the 20D instead, but I had never really thought of that as a valid alternative since It's so much more money. Plus, since I don't move out of the house until after this summer for college, I'm still going to have to get this purchase "approved" by my parents. They already thought I was crazy when I bought a GL2 last year

Anyway, when the next Digital Rebel comes out, I would greatly appreciate any opinions on whether I should buy it or the 20D instead. I don't know too much of the details of either camera, so please let me know which would be the better buy.

And thanks again to everyone for their help. svejar–those links should be very helpful.

 

[jared_kipe]

The current EOS 300D is a great camera, and with a widely available firmware patch you get most of the features of the EOS 10D instantly. However I would highly recommend this lens over the other 28-105, it is vastly superior and you should be able to find it on ebay for less than 200USD. http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7442

 

[iGary]

Well, we obvioulsy cannot compare a product that has not been released yet, with another that has.


The 20D just makes the Rebel look like a toy (again, no offense).

 

[jared_kipe]

Well, we obvioulsy cannot compare a product that has not been released yet, with another that has.


The 20D just makes the Rebel look like a toy (again, no offense).

Look like maybe, but its ridiculous to say that that the 300D is a toy. In fact, unless you're going to be heavily cropping or printing a freaking poster, then you won't notice much image difference between the 10D/300D and the 20D.

 

[rkphoto]

Well, we obvioulsy cannot compare a product that has not been released yet, with another that has.


The 20D just makes the Rebel look like a toy (again, no offense).

I agree. I've never really liked any of the Rebels (Digital or Film) which is why I suggested the Powershot Pro 1. In my opinion it's a far better camera than the Rebel (plus you don't have to carry a bag full of lenses). But if you absolutely have to have an SLR I would recommend the 20D if you have the extra cash. It's a great body and has all the features and durability of the top of the line pro cameras. Canon is definitely the brand to go with and I tend to shy away from non-Canon lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) but if you need to save that cash to get a better body (the 20D), I would.

Good Luck,
rk

 

[cwright]

I don't really care for the silver color of the 300d, and I would definitely buy the black version of the 350d, assuming it's still available from B&H.

jared_kipe: you mentioned a different 28-105mm lens. I may very well buy that lens since it is cheaper, but i'm curious why you think it's better than the same (or similar) 28-105mm lens with the image stabilizer? also, if I were to buy the 28-105mm and NOT get the 18-55mm, do you think the loss of that 10mm on the wide angle would be a big problem?

I have a feeling that the perfect lens range for me to start with is the 17-85mm lens that is found bundled with the 20D. It sounds good to me, since it would be an even slightly wider angle than the 18-55 and a longer zoom as well. The only problem is that I cannot find this lens to purchase seperately that does not have the image stabilizer, and the IS version is a $600 lens.

I really did not want to spend THAT much money... but maybe it would be a better idea to wait a little longer and buy the 20D w/ 17-85mm lens for $2,000. That would be an awesome system, but then I start to wonder if it would be overkill for a beginner like me.

 

[svejar]

I really did not want to spend THAT much money... but maybe it would be a better idea to wait a little longer and buy the 20D w/ 17-85mm lens for $2,000. That would be an awesome system, but then I start to wonder if it would be overkill for a beginner like me.

Belive me, the 300D is an excellent place to start. It's cheap, it's powerful, and you can spend the extra dough on lenses.

 

[Jo-Kun]

I use a Nikon D100 (because I had allready several lenses...)

but I'm thinking of switching to Canon 1DS II for studio purposes (because Canon has more shift lenses then Nikon does...)

I looked at the Powershot Pro1 and it looks like a very good camera for its money if you don't need to get a lot of lenses to carry around.

if you get a Canon Dslr I would reccomend to go with the kit to start off with (maybe check eBay or so for some other 2nd hand lenses...), and when you have some money look at the L series, they seem to be better for digital (like DX lenses for Nikon or the ED lenses, I have a 80-200ED and that performs better than all the other lenses I have) remember any lens has the best image quality if you close the f by 2stops so for instance a 2,8 will have the best image quality at 5,6
the larger the aperture: f-number the better to focus in low-light conditions but not the best aperture to use (because of lens flaws that there may be on the outside of the glass) when you use 22 or higher (32 etc.) you can get allso les sharp images because the diafragm then starts to act as a lens on itself so getting it a little blurred mostly not really viewable but I had some cases in wich I made a picture on f8 and one on f22 where the last one is less sharp...

edit:
PS: look at getting Photoshop or something like that because sometimes its better to shutdown the camera sharpening and do it manually with Unsharp mask in Photoshop...
:edit

 

[vtprinz]

and when you have some money look at the L series, they seem to be better for digital

I would certainly hope so, it's Canon's top-of-the-line series

And as for the "sweet-spot" of the lens, Jo-Kun is right. I forgot to mention that. With any lens, if you stop the lens down 2 times past it's lowest f-stop then you usually get the best image quality out of that lens. The lens on my camera (Sony F-828) is a 28-200mm f/2-2.8. So the sweet-spot for that lens is usually around f/4 or so.

 

[Graeme A]

when i switched from film to digital, i looked at the canon 10d and the newly released rebel (or 300d). unfortunately, i had too much invested in nikon lenses to switch brands.

you are in a good position, as you have no old lenses and as a beginner, to look seriously at the canon kit. i was impressed with it and i would follow the advice of people mentioning prime lenses... you appreciate the photography more with primes than with a zoom.

i ended up buying a D100 and have had many a good photo from it...

 

[cwright]

Well the new Digital Rebel XT is out...

8.0 megapixel
DIG!C II processor
smaller/lighter
3 fps, 14 frame burst
0.2 startup time
better focusing, but no 9-point AF
usb 2.0
available in silver and black

looks like a solid update, but then again, I'm not the expert. What do you guys think? is this model much better than the Nikon D-70? How does it compare to the 20D?

Thanks,
you guys have been alot of help!

 

[vtprinz]

I was wondering how long it would take for this post to be reincarnated

From the specs, the 350D looks really great, a solid competitor to the D70, possibly better in terms of customizability and (maybe) image quality, though that is just guesses from the spec list. Have to wait for some full reviews.

The smaller size of it could be nice, as well as the matte feel rather than the smooth plastic. Might actually feel like a real camera now. Still don't think it would match the comfort of the D70 though, but that's a subjective argument.

For now, we just have to wait and see how it performs.

(It does look verrrry tempting though)




ps- kudos to Canon for making black the default color!

 

[madforrit]

PhotoSIG

This site has been fantastic for my very serious foray into DSLR photography (wth my 20D).

www.photosig.com

People submit photos and provide critiques, so it's a great place to learn what makes good photographs.

Also, if considering various lenses, you can search photos by lens to see what people are able to do with a given lens, camera, etc...

There are also reviews on cameras, lenses, tripods, filters, everything.

I highly recommend this site!!

 

[jared_kipe]

I don't really care for the silver color of the 300d, and I would definitely buy the black version of the 350d, assuming it's still available from B&H.

jared_kipe: you mentioned a different 28-105mm lens. I may very well buy that lens since it is cheaper, but i'm curious why you think it's better than the same (or similar) 28-105mm lens with the image stabilizer? also, if I were to buy the 28-105mm and NOT get the 18-55mm, do you think the loss of that 10mm on the wide angle would be a big problem?

I think you are talking about the 28-135 IS, which is quite obviously a better lens. But there are some issues with that lens, #1 would be that the lens is quite large in comparison to the medium 28-105. Secondly I believe it uses like 72mm threads, meaning filters you buy will be rare and expensive, meanwhile the 28-105 uses 58mm threads which are common same threads as on the 18-55mm. I would get the kit lens, it will be the best piece of glass you can get for the money, it adds a nice wide angle (yes the difference from 18-28 is huge) and it works pretty well as a macro lens.

On a side note I built a reverse lens mount, and with that 18mm lens, I think I can get somewhere near 6:1.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Well the new Digital Rebel XT is out...

8.0 megapixel
DIG!C II processor
smaller/lighter
3 fps, 14 frame burst
0.2 startup time
better focusing, but no 9-point AF
usb 2.0
available in silver and black

looks like a solid update, but then again, I'm not the expert. What do you guys think? is this model much better than the Nikon D-70? How does it compare to the 20D?

Thanks,
you guys have been alot of help!

This seems to be a very solid contender IMO. In particular if the reviews from the likes of DPReview show that the picture performance is equal to the 20D.

On the surface, the 350D will give a good run for the money against the D70. Though IMO the D70 may have a slight edge in "build feel". Again we will have to wait for reviews, but the 350D verses the 20D will present a difficult choice for some.

For $500 more for the 20D it would seem that you get the following:

- Potentially a faster, better AF system. Some may not care about the slight (IMO) difference

- A larger frame buffer in the 20D. And a faster frame rate. ow any will really want/need 5 FPS or in RAW an extra two frames?

- If Canon sealed off hacking the firmware, you will be limited to IO 1600 on the 350D, compared to 3200 on the 20D. Again, how many will really need/want that capability?

- The 20D is said to have a more robust shutter. Shutters for cameras are designed with a mean number of uses. I seem to remember seeing numbers that said the DRebel had a life of 15-20K and the 20D had a life of 40-50K. Just how much shooting will a person do before needing a $200 or $300 general repair and cleaning/overhaul, before they decide to buy the next best thing? (Again, IMO I see people trying to equate DSLRs to FSLRs doubt that many will still be wanting to use a 350D or 20D five to twenty years from now)

Keep in mind, that the silver or black option is only for Europe at this time. The word I have heard is that the silver will be the color of choice in the US.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I think you are talking about the 28-135 IS, which is quite obviously a better lens. But there are some issues with that lens, #1 would be that the lens is quite large in comparison to the medium 28-105. Secondly I believe it uses like 72mm threads, meaning filters you buy will be rare and expensive, meanwhile the 28-105 uses 58mm threads which are common same threads as on the 18-55mm. I would get the kit lens, it will be the best piece of glass you can get for the money, it adds a nice wide angle (yes the difference from 18-28 is huge) and it works pretty well as a macro lens.

On a side note I built a reverse lens mount, and with that 18mm lens, I think I can get somewhere near 6:1.[/QUOTE}

You are right he was referring to the 28-135IS.

The lens is larger than the 28-105, but IMO more versatile. The point should be made that this lens on a DSLR will be more like a 45-216IS. Canon does have the 17-85IS that is actually like the 28-135 in 35mm terms. And it uses 67mm filters. But the 72mm is not a non starter IMO. Many lenses are moving towards 72 or 77mm in size. And one can buy a step-up ring to allow for larger filter sizes to be used on smaller filter sized lenses.

 

[jared_kipe]

I think you are talking about the 28-135 IS, which is quite obviously a better lens. But there are some issues with that lens, #1 would be that the lens is quite large in comparison to the medium 28-105. Secondly I believe it uses like 72mm threads, meaning filters you buy will be rare and expensive, meanwhile the 28-105 uses 58mm threads which are common same threads as on the 18-55mm. I would get the kit lens, it will be the best piece of glass you can get for the money, it adds a nice wide angle (yes the difference from 18-28 is huge) and it works pretty well as a macro lens.

On a side note I built a reverse lens mount, and with that 18mm lens, I think I can get somewhere near 6:1.[/QUOTE}

You are right he was referring to the 28-135IS.

The lens is larger than the 28-105, but IMO more versatile. The point should be made that this lens on a DSLR will be more like a 45-216IS. Canon does have the 17-85IS that is actually like the 28-135 in 35mm terms. And it uses 67mm filters. But the 72mm is not a non starter IMO. Many lenses are moving towards 72 or 77mm in size. And one can buy a step-up ring to allow for larger filter sizes to be used on smaller filter sized lenses.

Of course its more versitile, I said it was a better lens. But for a beginner, do they really want to pay more than twice as much for a lens just for that added 30mm and IS?

 

[madmaxmedia]

I agree. I've never really liked any of the Rebels (Digital or Film) which is why I suggested the Powershot Pro 1. In my opinion it's a far better camera than the Rebel (plus you don't have to carry a bag full of lenses). But if you absolutely have to have an SLR I would recommend the 20D if you have the extra cash. It's a great body and has all the features and durability of the top of the line pro cameras. Canon is definitely the brand to go with and I tend to shy away from non-Canon lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) but if you need to save that cash to get a better body (the 20D), I would.

Good Luck,
rk

I would really disagree that the Powershot Pro 1 is better than the Rebel, although it really depends on what you want and need in a camera.

I'm sure the Pro 1 has a lot of great features. But everyone talks about how much of a 'toy' the Digital Rebel is, but fails to mention that it has the same exact CMOS sensor as the 10D, a sensor that produces absolutely stunning images. It also has very similar AF system. Any pro will tell you that the Rebel is a very capable camera, regardless of whether it feels like a toy or not. There are some stripped features (but many can be enabled via firmware hack), it's up to the OP to decide whether he needs them.

To the OP, keep in mind that a camera is in the end a piece of equipment. You can buy a $100 camera or a $10,000 camera, keep in mind it is you who are taking the pictures. We're all discussing pros and cons of this model vs. that model, but in the end it depends on what you are shooting. It's great to shop around and make the most informed purchase possible. And of course you want to buy the camera and lenses most suited to what you want to shoot. But for the most part, it won't really matter that much which of these cameras you buy- frankly they're all excellent and would've cost many thousands of dollars a few short years ago.

I think there's some people (not here mind you) that spend more time on DPreview.com obsessing about their gear, than actually going out and using it. It's actually fun to some extent (just like everyone here loves their Macs ), but you also want to keep things in perspective.

 

[madmaxmedia]

Of course its more versitile, I said it was a better lens. But for a beginner, do they really want to pay more than twice as much for a lens just for that added 30mm and IS?

Also, the lens quality of the two is similar IIRC. So I think it really depends on whether you need the IS (which he might.) The extra 30mm range probably isn't worth it by itself.

 

[psycho bob]

Only a fool wouldn't consider Sigma and Tamron lenses. I personally use a Sigma SD9 with various lenses and still use film SLR's and rangefinder cameras. Sigma's EX lenses are equally as good and often better then their Canon counterparts. At the price range you will be looking at a lense from any of the well known manufacturers will give you similar performance.
Prime lenses (ie; ones with only a single focal length) will give you a better quality image pound for pound (or $ for $ as may be the case). However until you know what type of photography to specialise in zoom lenses are more practical. Fast lenses (the lower the apeture setting the faster the lense, 2.8 is about the average for medium to high level lenses) are more useful as they can be used in more lighting conditions but a general rule of thumb is the more extreme the focal length (be it wide 14mm or telephoto 600mm) and the faster it is the higher the cost will be. This is because fast lenses at extreme focal lengths require large areas of glass.
Our family has a history of photography and although the technology has changed so things haven't. Leica/leitz make wonderful lenses, probably the best in the world but they cost more then most Digital SLR's. Canon offer a wide range of camera bodies and lenses to meet all pockets but for the most part fall in to two groups; consumer and pro. The professional models cost in excess of £3000 while consumer models such as the 350 and the new 20D come in at more affordable price points. Nikon have throughout history been considered the professionals choice and the D70 is a superb piece of kit, following the release of updated models from Canon expect an update soon. Keep an eye out for end of line bargains, any of the current crop will give you great results on images up to A3. You don't have to buy the latest kit, get what best fits your pocket and only pay for features you need.
Also don't forget about other makers such as Minolta and Sigma. While Canon and Nikon can trade on their names other manufacturers look to attract people with advanced technology and unique features.
Most of all remember photography isn't about the technology it is about the images you take

 

[Moxiemike]

Lots of mis-info here!

if you need a decent all-around lens to learn on, you'll be fine with the kit lens that comes with the camera. It's in no way a terrible lens, just not as high quality as the more pricey substitutes. When you do eventually get more lenses, try to get them with the lowest f-stop possible. An f/2 lens will be much faster than an f/4 lens so you don't have to worry about boosting the ISO on the camera as much (thus keeping your shots as noise free as possible). Plus, the lower the f-stop number (which means the greater the aperture is opened) the shorter your depth of field can be. This is great for portrait work. the wider the aperture, the better you will be able to have the blurred background you see in most professional portraits.

An f2.0 lens, yes, will give you more DOF. But it all depends on your focal length, Try and get a whole face in focus with, say, a 35mm lens at f2.0. You won't! but get a longer focal length, and the DOF will allow for perfectly blurred areas with a sharp and well isolated subject. Ideal focal length is say, an 85mm lens. I shoot an 85mm f1.4 for weddings, and barely EVER use 1.4 for a portrait, usually in the f4-5.6 range and i still get TONS of DOF.

one more thing to remember: the 300D (and all lower-end DSLRs) have a field of view crop, since the sensor isn't quite the full 35mm that film is. Lenses are still listed in 35mm equivalents, as that's basically the norm. I believe on the 300D the FOV crop is 1.6x, so whatever the lens says, multiply it by 1.6 and that's the actual range that you would get with that lens on the digital rebel. For example, the 18-55mm kit lens ends up being a 28.8-88mm lens.

Sure, some DSLR's use field of view crops in their sensors. That DOES NOT make them "lower-end". For example, Nikon uses 1.5 crops in their lower end cams, like the D70 and D100 but ALSO in their 12.4mp behemoth the D2x and the PJ cam, the D2h. Canon even uses a FOV crop in their EOS 1d MK II of 1.3. Fuji uses a 1.5 crop on their S3 which might be the most professional looking sensor around for noise, DR and image quality! Lastly, having used FF cameras like the 1ds and the Kodak 14n, I can say that FF on digital is still a ways from REALLY being high end. On the 1ds, the light fall off and softness in the corners, especially at wide angles, makes photos a lot less usable. That and the price of FF cams like the 1ds and the 14 c/n and the 1ds MK II prices them out of the range of most.

The most useful range for all around photography is definitely 28-200mm. So if you can find yourself about an 17.5-125mm lens that would be best, and I think there are a few of those (or close to it) available now that DSLRs have become more popular. With that you'd probably never have to change lenses unless you really want some more telezoom. So you'd get the same range as most high end prosumer cameras without having to change lenses, but you'd still have the option for longer zooms if you ever need it. Not to mention you'll get a lot better quality images out of a DSLR than a prosumer cam.

Gosh. the 28-200mm range is probably the most POPULAR but it's not the best. Secondly, a 28-200 zoom is a BAD choice! You're asking ENTIRELY too much from a lens at that range. I'd suggest a 12-24 Sigma (~18-35 on a DSLR) and a 70-200 (~105-300). That gets your wide and your telephoto bases cover. Add in a 24mm or 35mm prime, a 50mm prime and an 85mm prime and you have all of your bases covered with QUALITY glass. Which REALLY is the key to DSLR image quality.

Someone above mentioned the Canon forum on www.dpreview.com, I second this to a huge degree. I learned almost everything I know (which includes both photography techniques and digital post processing techniques) from the Sony forum on dpreview.

Yea. I'd head straight for the PRO forum on fredmiranda.com instead. Much more knowledge to be had there.

EDIT: in case you don't know what I mean by aperture (which I never knew until I got my first SLR), the aperture is the opening in the lens that lets the light into camera. it's best thought of like the iris in your eye (which is what it's commonly called anyway), as the iris (aperture) opens, light can enter the camera faster. And like I said above, the wider the aperture is open, the lower the corresponding f-stop number. So f/2 lets light into the camera faster than f/4 (f numbers usually range from as low as f/1 to f/32 or more) And again, the wider the aperture, the shorter the depth of field in the shot, giving you blurred backgrounds. The smaller the aperture (greater the f-stop #) the greater the depth of field, which is best for sweeping landscapes.

Remember also that focal length affects DOF too. a 35mm lens at f2.0 has MUCH more DOF than a 85mm at f2.0. It's not all in the aperture. Distance to subject also can affect DOF, especially at longer focal lengths. The aperture, surely affects DOF, but its main purpose is letting in light.

In your case, go with the Rebel XT. The rebel's body, at least the 300d, was a plastic piece of junk, but it'll do you to learn on, then grab a used 1d or 1d mk II when you're ready to make money. The durability, image quality and are top notch. You could also grab a D2hs or D2x if you wanna go Nikon, which has a much better flash system, better WA lenses, and much nicer ergonomics than Canon. That plus EOS images are a lil' more smudgey and soft, IMHO than the nIkon, which looks more film-like.

Just my $1.75.