Finally Getting a DSLR. Need Advice!

[ocabj]

For someone that's just learning landscape they're not going to be able to really tell the difference between a $20 filter and a $40. Not to mention how often you use actually use a filter. So you can argue this till you're blue in the face if you want. Doesn't change the conditions.

That's because there isn't a difference between a $20 and a $40 filter. They're both going to suck.

But there is a difference between a $20 CPL "Rocket Fish" from Best Buy and a $180 B+W CPL.

Filter comparisons over exaggerated to hammer home the point:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters

 

[M0cked]

Ah, that explains quite a bit. Forget about brands for a second and try to think what you want to do with your camera:
- Do you want to take your camera on hiking trips and such?
If you benefit from having a smaller camera, you should look into m4/3 or an EVIL camera, they are markedly smaller. I had to buy a Sigma DP1 (a »serious point and shoot«) for my mountain biking trips and for when I want to go skiing.

- What do you want to shoot?
If you want to buy a camera for the express purpose of making landscapes, you are also less dependent on the improved high-ISO noise that current dslrs offer, you will ideally be shooting at base ISO (typically ISO 100 or 200) anyway. Hence, you could start with a camera that is older or has a slightly smaller sensor.

- How much do you want to invest in total? This total must include a proper camera bag, for instance!
One of the most important pieces of advice is to invest your money in lenses rather than the body. Lenses outlive bodies by a long shot (the oldest and second-oldest lenses I use are 20~25 years old and still work like a charm). Also, if you want to learn the ropes of photography, get a prime lens (i. e. a lens that does not zoom). Prime lenses are much faster (meaning you can shoot in the dark) and force you to think more about composition.

These are great questions posted that will help narrow things down. Also, if you have a camera store near by, go in and see how they feel in your hands. I was first considering Nikon 'back in the day' and to me it just didn't sit right in my hands, and so I went Canon.

----------

That's because there isn't a difference between a $20 and a $40 filter. They're both going to suck.

But there is a difference between a $20 CPL "Rocket Fish" from Best Buy and a $180 B+W CPL.

Filter comparisons over exaggerated to hammer home the point:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters

Again, irrelevant to the point cause you'd never use a filter in those settings. And yet again, for the amount a beginner would use filters is not worth $180... Good try though.

BTW... this was shot with one of those $6 filters....

 

[ocabj]

Again, irrelevant to the point cause you'd never use a filter in those settings. And yet again, for the amount a beginner would use filters is not worth $180... Good try though.

The issue at hand is that you told the OP to invest in high quality glass, but then go cheap on a filter (which basically = low quality). Yet you're trying to to deflect any notion that such a recommendation will effectively lower the optical quality of a high grade lens down to the optical quality of a low grade filter.

Instead of shooting down the discussion of this issue by being patronizing with vague statements, you need to explain why it's "irrelevant to the point because you'd never use a filter in those settings" and why it's not worth it for a beginner to use quality (albeit pricier filters) and rather use cheap filters.

I would have respected that you told the OP to not use any filters at all and to experiment with long exposure rather than using ND filters for the landscape photography.

----------

BTW... this was shot with one of those $6 filters....

http://benberndt.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Minnesota/i-JDCzVZS/0/X3/IMG3531-X3.jpg]

That's a fine photo. What kind of filter did you use and for what purpose?

 

[M0cked]

The issue at hand is that you told the OP to invest in high quality glass, but then go cheap on a filter (which basically = low quality). Yet you're trying to to deflect any notion that such a recommendation will effectively lower the optical quality of a high grade lens down to the optical quality of a low grade filter.

Instead of shooting down the discussion of this issue by being patronizing with vague statements, you need to explain why it's "irrelevant to the point because you'd never use a filter in those settings" and why it's not worth it for a beginner to use quality (albeit pricier filters) and rather use cheap filters.

I would have respected that you told the OP to not use any filters at all and to experiment with long exposure rather than using ND filters for the landscape photography.

In the end the picture does the talking not the gear and if I can shoot the above picture with a $6 filter, who cares... Great gear =/= great pictures. So if you want to give advice to a beginner who's just learning and say he needs $180 filters to shoot well... all I'm going to say, "It's the Indian, not the arrow".

----------

The issue at hand is that you told the OP to invest in high quality glass, but then go cheap on a filter (which basically = low quality). Yet you're trying to to deflect any notion that such a recommendation will effectively lower the optical quality of a high grade lens down to the optical quality of a low grade filter.

Instead of shooting down the discussion of this issue by being patronizing with vague statements, you need to explain why it's "irrelevant to the point because you'd never use a filter in those settings" and why it's not worth it for a beginner to use quality (albeit pricier filters) and rather use cheap filters.

I would have respected that you told the OP to not use any filters at all and to experiment with long exposure rather than using ND filters for the landscape photography.

----------



That's a fine photo. What kind of filter did you use and for what purpose?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/84mm-Neutra...0504785?pt=Camera_Filters&hash=item5add56b8d1

Was the filter I used to slow stuff down and smooth out the water and balance the sky. And I can't remember if I used 2 filters or not...

 

[codymac]

That's a fine photo. What kind of filter did you use and for what purpose?

A bad ND filter with high IR transmission.


See this for reference on why the image has a pronounced red cast. Interestingly, B+W (expensive) are some of the worst offenders:

http://www.bulbexposures.com/home/2011/10/11/nd-filter-color-cast.html

 

[fitshaced]

The issue at hand is that you told the OP to invest in high quality glass, but then go cheap on a filter (which basically = low quality). Yet you're trying to to deflect any notion that such a recommendation will effectively lower the optical quality of a high grade lens down to the optical quality of a low grade filter.

Instead of shooting down the discussion of this issue by being patronizing with vague statements, you need to explain why it's "irrelevant to the point because you'd never use a filter in those settings" and why it's not worth it for a beginner to use quality (albeit pricier filters) and rather use cheap filters.

I would have respected that you told the OP to not use any filters at all and to experiment with long exposure rather than using ND filters for the landscape photography.

Actually I understand the idea of buying quality glass but cheap filters. The lens is an investment. The filter can be a trial. The OP could buy an ND filter and then decide that its not the exact type he likes and so tries another. Afterwards, when he determines if he wants a 2 stop or 10 stop, he can invest in the one he picks.

Buying a 'cheap' $300 lens is not such a wise move though if they're not happy with the results.

 

[tjusafa14]

Before you guys keep suggesting Canon 5Ds and other expensive cameras with filters and lenses just remember that I have a budget of about $1000 right now and I want to start photography, not with tripods and stuff just learn the ropes of DSLR photography and then maybe move up to a better camera later down the road. Thanks for all the help!

And I plan on mostly using the camera while hiking and maybe just bringing it around. After I really begin to learn it I will want to delve into other forms of photography and get more serious.

 

[h1r0ll3r]

T3i user here. Difference between T2i/T3i is negligible. T3i has a swivel screen along with some other minor differences so they're basically the same thing. Personally, I love the swivel screen as it allows you to take some awkward shots without looking awkward yourself. T3i/T4i, the differences are slight but not by much. T4i has a better processor and does video a lot better than the T3i does so that's a bonus if you're into shooting video.

Since this is your first camera, I'd recommend the T3i as it, as well as the T2i, have dropped in price since the T4i came out. You can find pretty good deals on eBay or 1saleaday.com for the cameras. 1saleaday.com routinely has camera sales so if you sign up for their newsletter, you're sure to find a good deal on a camera. I'm not familiar with Nikons at all however, whichever brand you go for, can't go wrong really as both are quality cameras.

Also, you might wanna check out the mirrorless cameras like the Nikon 1 or Sony Nex5/7 as well. While they're not DSLR cameras, they still provide excellent images in a unit that's not quite as bulky as your normal DSLR. They're a smidge pricier then the T series cameras but that's your call.

Overall, I'd say find a nice deal on the T3i with, hopefully, the 18-135 kit lens and you should be set for quite some time.

 

[milbournosphere]

...I plan on mostly using the camera while hiking and maybe just bringing it around...

For that purpose I would get one of the smaller bodies and save your money for a nice zoom lens and perhaps a prime lens of some sort. My 3100 is a very small body that actually requires a grip for some larger lenses because it is so light that a heavier lens throws off the balance entirely. Attach a prime lens to it (or a 300mm zoom lens for hiking) and it becomes the perfect walking around camera. I also make use of a monopod with a quick-release shoe when hiking so one can get a little stability when needed. Buy a D3100/3200 with kit lens, and a basic zoom lens (I recommend the Tamron 70-300 lens); you should be able to stay under your budget of $1000 while being ready for both wide shots and closer frames of relatively far off wildlife.

Talk to your friends before committing to a system, though. Don't underestimate the ability to share lenses with your buddies, it'll save you quite a bit of cash.

 

[zombiecakes]

Seriously, dont buy a camera based on the camera, that thing will be outdated in 2 years. I dont understand why people need the latest and greatest camera bodies, look at digital photography from 10 years ago and compare it to todays, it wasnt exactly camera phone quality.

Choose the lens you want, then buy the camera you can afford after that. The lens is what creates the picture, the camera just records it. You will have your lens for many years to come until they change cameras so much that its no longer compatible. You can go all the way back to something like a Rebel XSi and still take pictures at good print resolution and have live view functionality.

Beginners especially should focus on a lens as their photos arent going to benefit much from the fine intricacies that separate the camera bodies, like an APS-C sensor vs a full frame or noise and dynamic range. A beginners bottleneck is not going to be technical limitations of the camera like it is for a pro, its going to be skill and technique which the lens is going to impact greatly.

You will just discourage yourself using the kit lens and wonder why you cant take photos like the ones you want to take. I wish somebody would have told me about lenses in photography class, the kit lens made me hate photography because I could never do what I wanted to do. Having an arsenal of lenses will give you the confidence and the tools to truly learn photography quickly.

 

[aerok]

If it's your first camera, I suggest a Canon 500d used. Not worth spending so much money on a first camera. A used Canon 500d/t1i can be had for under $400, you can invest on a decent tripiod and a bag. Also invest on a 50 mm 1.8F, best lens to learn with.

I started off with a t1i, recently bought a 7D and I still use my first camera as much I use my 7D.

All of my pictures in my flickr are shot with my t1i.

 

[jpine]

My HDV camcorder is on its last legs and I will probably replace it with a DSLR. Therefore, I've been lurking on this forum and have learned a lot. Today, I learned about CPL for the first time. Here is a link for the OP and other that goes into a bit more detail about CPL filters with some good examples. It is put out by Nikon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml9ORHZHwt8

 

[7enderbender]

I don't envy anyone these days who wants to get into photography on a budget. When I started it was film and the results a cheap AE1 with a decent 50mm lens were very very close to what you would get from a top-shelf Canon or Nikon body with pretty much the same lens. And the results by the way were very very good, unlike what today's instagram filter users think what "vintage" film looked like.

Today you have an issue. ALL affordable cameras have small sensors so far. So as far as your choices go, the body doesn't matter really. If you like touch-y screens and in camera "HDR" processing go with the T4i or any equivalent from other brands. The other bodies will deliver more or less all the same result.
For landscape you don't need shallow depth of field (which is important for me which is why I never switched to digital until I was able to afford a full frame DSLR with a few fast primes). So that makes that easier. Next step is the lens. The cheap "kit" lens won't make you happy for what you are intending to do. The "L" series zooms that some mentioned are significantly better but also more expensive. My advice would be to instead buy a mid-range-priced prime lens in your favorite focal length and use that. It will be much much sharper than the cheap zoom - actually often times even sharper than the $1000+ "L" zooms. For the wide angle that you probably need on a "crop" sensor you'd be looking at something in the $500-$800 range that would still serve you well if you later upgrade to a 35mm sensor camera, whereas all "EF-S" lenses are not compatible at that point.
Two other primes to check out are the 50 1.8 (dirt cheap) and the new 40mm 2.8 (about 200 bucks). Very sharp. A little on the long side for landscape but for everything else I would prefer these over really any cheap kit zoom.

If I was on a sub $1000 budget and looking for a APS-C type camera I would get the cheapest T-Rebel with the 85 1.8 and the 40 2.8 or 50 1.4.

And for landscape you want to save for a good tripod. You'll need around $800-$1000 for that.

----------

Before you guys keep suggesting Canon 5Ds and other expensive cameras with filters and lenses just remember that I have a budget of about $1000 right now and I want to start photography, not with tripods and stuff just learn the ropes of DSLR photography and then maybe move up to a better camera later down the road. Thanks for all the help!

And I plan on mostly using the camera while hiking and maybe just bringing it around. After I really begin to learn it I will want to delve into other forms of photography and get more serious.

And with that in mind I would even reduce it to 1. a used Rebel body with more than 8MP (so any really) and the new 40mm. Once you get good pictures with that you know if you want to build from there or not.

 

[r.harris1]

Whatever camera you choose will likely be the least of your worries

Shooting the fabulous landscapes here in Colorado at 100-200 iso, nice depth-of-field / smaller apertures you'll want to do more investing in lenses and support. I always like to point folks to Thom Hogan's support article (he's a Nikon shooter but support is universal). Give it a read and some of his other articles - he's a good writer and good reviewer.

 

[MCAsan]

You might want to start with something like a Nikon V1 or J1 kit. You can get the kits at Costco and others stores. Learn to use the camera with the kit lenses. Then get the lens adapter to put full 35mm lenses on that body. The next step would be a full 35mm body.....and you keep the Nikon 1 body and lenses as a backup and for locations where a large 35 camera would not be a good idea.

The advantage is you can get the kit for less less than $1000 and build on it over time. Nothing is a throwaway.

If you like Canon, you can do similarly with the new EOS M body.

 

[mikepro]

Before you guys keep suggesting Canon 5Ds and other expensive cameras with filters and lenses just remember that I have a budget of about $1000 right now and I want to start photography, not with tripods and stuff just learn the ropes of DSLR photography and then maybe move up to a better camera later down the road. Thanks for all the help!

And I plan on mostly using the camera while hiking and maybe just bringing it around. After I really begin to learn it I will want to delve into other forms of photography and get more serious.

Well, it's really not that hard then. Just get one of the Canon or Nikon entry level DSLR kits in your budget and start learning or exploring. Yes, yes, save money for good glass, blah blah blah. Any kit lens will be just fine for someone starting out learning the ropes, and how they like to use their camera. Once you learn that the kit lens is limiting you, you will know enough to choose your next lens. You don't need a $1000 tripod (and NEVER will in my opinion, there are many viable options waaay cheaper) or a bagillion dollar filter either. Just get a kit, and get shooting!

Now, Canon vs. Nikon - how to decide? Pretty easy really:
- Do you have any friends/family that own either brand? If so, get the brand that more of your friends have so you can share lenses and stuff.
- Play with both in a store, and get the one that feels best in your hands
- Just get the one you find the best deal on.

 

[7enderbender]

You might want to start with something like a Nikon V1 or J1 kit. You can get the kits at Costco and others stores. Learn to use the camera with the kit lenses. Then get the lens adapter to put full 35mm lenses on that body. The next step would be a full 35mm body.....and you keep the Nikon 1 body and lenses as a backup and for locations where a large 35 camera would not be a good idea.

The advantage is you can get the kit for less less than $1000 and build on it over time. Nothing is a throwaway.

If you like Canon, you can do similarly with the new EOS M body.

Not sure about that one. The Nikon 1 seems to be one of the many "lifestyle" cams that comes in the color matching your purse. The sensor in it is too small for anything giving you results that differ from any other point and shoot. The Canon M at least received an APS-C sensor - for what it's worth.

Also, there is a difference in the way people shoot mirrorless cameras and (D)SLRs. There are still applications where a true SLR is what people will lean towards with respect of handling, features, ergonomics, etc.

For those looking to use a mirrorless camera with a large sensor (more versatility with respect to depth of field, usually better low-light performance) Samsung is always worth looking at. One of my photographer friends who is always on a tight budget got a Samsung NX 10 and an adapter for his old manual focus Canon FD lenses. Loves it and gets very good results.

 

[MCAsan]

The cool think about the Nikon V1 is when you put a 35mm lens adapter on it , you can a 2.7 multiplier.....not 1.6 like most 35mm DSLR crop bodies.

So image you have a Nikon 70-200 f2.8. You put that on the V1 and it is now a 189-540 at f2.8. Were you are going to find a 500mm at f2.8? Of slap on one of those Sigma 150-500. You are now shooting at 405-1350 at the native aperture......no penality like when using a TC.

The EOS M, it is just another 1.6 crop body sensor. As a Canon shooter I had hoped EOS M would also give a near 3x multiplier. Personally I don't need a mirrorless 1.6 cropper. I have a 7D when I want a 1.6 cropper and 5DIII when I want FF.

 

[r.harris1]

The cool think about the Nikon V1 is when you put a 35mm lens adapter on it , you can a 2.7 multiplier.....not 1.6 like most 35mm DSLR crop bodies.

So image you have a Nikon 70-200 f2.8. You put that on the V1 and it is now a 189-540 at f2.8. Were you are going to find a 500mm at f2.8? Of slap on one of those Sigma 150-500. You are now shooting at 405-1350 at the native aperture......no penality like when using a TC.

The EOS M, it is just another 1.6 crop body sensor. As a Canon shooter I had hoped EOS M would also give a near 3x multiplier. Personally I don't need a mirrorless 1.6 cropper. I have a 7D when I want a 1.6 cropper and 5DIII when I want FF.

Yep - that's what I love about the V1 - I slap my 300mm AF-S F4 and have a terrific birding outfit with FOV equivalent of an 810mm lens that's quite manageable to carry about. Image quality is quite good for the sensor size. We'll see what they do with the Nikon 1 series going forward. Autofocus is absolutely astonishing, now we need better primes, an additional pixel or two and I'll be good.

 

[MCAsan]

Mark Alberhasky, a Nikon Mentor, was at one of local clubs a couple of weeks back. The shots he was getting with his V1 and 35mm lenses was amazing. He said the only bodies he carries now is his D7000 and his V1. If I were a Nikonian, I would be all over a V1 with the lens adapter as my second camera.

 

[tjusafa14]

I think I may have found a solution that works for me. After some research the past couple days and a trip to best buy tonight to see and feel the T3i and T4i I have come to the conclusion that they are way to bulky for what I want to do (hiking, skiing, etc). I need something a little more portable so I found out about the Canon EOS M mirrorless camera that comes out this October. It seems like it may work best for me because with the pancake 22mm lens it is super portable but has the same sensor as the T4i. Also the EF lens adapter that will come out for it leaves the possibility to get a larger lens such as a 50mm prime or a larger zoom lens for it. The lenses along with the adapter also allow me to move up to a Canon DSLR later down the road.

 

[kkleo]

Personally, i will go for the nikon d7000, just my 2 cents

 

[OreoCookie]

The lenses along with the adapter also allow me to move up to a Canon DSLR later down the road.

No, unfortunately you are not able to use EOS-M lenses on Canon dslrs, this only works the other way around (you can use lenses for Canon dslrs on the EOS-M body). So if you buy a Canon dslr in the future, you start from 0. I also don't think the current Canon EOS-M is a good choice if you really want to learn the ropes of photography: it's a point-and-shoot-style body unlike, say, the Fuji X100 or Olympus OM-D E5.

I once more recommend you have a look at micro-4/3 bodies.

 

[joemod]

I think I may have found a solution that works for me. After some research the past couple days and a trip to best buy tonight to see and feel the T3i and T4i I have come to the conclusion that they are way to bulky for what I want to do (hiking, skiing, etc). I need something a little more portable so I found out about the Canon EOS M mirrorless camera that comes out this October. It seems like it may work best for me because with the pancake 22mm lens it is super portable but has the same sensor as the T4i. Also the EF lens adapter that will come out for it leaves the possibility to get a larger lens such as a 50mm prime or a larger zoom lens for it. The lenses along with the adapter also allow me to move up to a Canon DSLR later down the road.

An additional note to what OreoCookie said: I am not really sure that taking landscape photographs with a camera that does not have a viewfinder will be easy. Since you live in the States I would propose to rent some cameras, shoot some photos, then decide.

 

[OreoCookie]

An additional note to what OreoCookie said: I am not really sure that taking landscape photographs with a camera that does not have a viewfinder will be easy. Since you live in the States I would propose to rent some cameras, shoot some photos, then decide.

Right. And the OP initially pointed out (s)he wants a dslr, because it is a »real« camera, so I don't think getting a P&S-inspired camera such as the EOS-M or one of Sony's Nexus cameras is a good idea. The way you take pictures is completely different. The EOS-M system is completely new, so the lens selection as of now is limited to one 22 mm f/2 pancake prime (corresponds to roughly 35 mm on full frame) and a standard slow 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom. Also, by the way Canon and Nikon position their mirrorless cameras, I think they're aiming them at the consumer market (IMHO a huge mistake).

I would also say that shooting style and intended use is much more important than manufacturer at this point: many »serious« landscape photographers carry a tripod, and when you're carrying a tripod, the difference between a dslr and an EVIL-type camera does not matter much. If you want a small camera that's always with you on hikes, an EVIL camera is the better choice. Also for street photography, the smaller, less intimidating mirrorless cameras have an edge. As of now, if you want a mirrorless camera with a large lens selection, the choice is clear, micro-4/3. If the OP were independently wealthy, I'd also suggest Fuji's X-Pro 1, but it's way outside of his budget.

Perhaps the X-E1 will be more affordable, it is rumored to cost »less than $1000«, although it is not clear whether this is really code for $999 and whether this price tag includes a lens. Certainly, the X-mount has more lenses than the EOS-M mount.