Didn't I state that I own a 550D with an EF 24-70mm F/2.8L USM?
Last edited by a moderator:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Which SLR for a beginner/entry level
- Thread starter LGShepherd
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Didn't I state that I own a 550D with an EF 24-70mm F/2.8L USM?
Uh..... It seems to me that people are going to be more likely to listen to and probably trust someone who has actually USED a piece of equipment (in this case, camera body and specific lenses) than someone who admits that he's never used them and yet is all too willing to put them (and the user) down.
ETA: I see that this character has also jumped on a couple of others here in this thread. Well, that's too bad. It detracts from the main purpose of the thread, which is to offer suggestions to someone who is looking for a new camera for a beginner. It's not meant to be a Sony vs any other brand thread, nor a DSLR vs 4/3 or MFT thread.
Most people in this thread are trying to sincerely offer ideas and suggestions to the OP and that will give him some food for thought when he goes to a camera shop and starts handling various camera bodies and lenses. I hope that in the end he comes away with the camera and lens(es) which will most suit his needs.
Last edited by a moderator:
(I noticed he upvoted himself)
Just one question: is the Vario-sonnar manual focus like other Zeiss lenses?
Edit: it's autofocus, I'm so silly.
"Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA SSM"
Can't answer your question, Prodo, since I don't yet have the Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 lens. I'm still lusting after it.... In the past I never got into Leica or Zeiss, pretty much have been a Nikon Grrrl for many, many years. In fact, it really felt strange to me to be buying a camera and lenses which weren't Nikon. A day or two after the purchase, I was outside in a flower bed shooting a lily when a neighbor came along. She and I started chatting and she asked about the camera and I reflexively started to answer, "it's a Ni--...." caught myself, paused, and finally went on with, "uh...it's a Sony NEX-7." 
The Sony NEX-7 is an amazing camera but I'm certainly not throwing my Nikons out the window. I can see that I'll be using two systems, each having its own merits and specific uses, and that's fine with me. While initially I had thought about getting an adapter for the Sony so that I could use my Nikon lenses on it I have now decided against that idea. I'll use the e-mount lenses on the Sony and the Nikon F-mount lenses on my Nikon DSLRs and everything will be just dandy.
The Sony NEX-7 is an amazing camera but I'm certainly not throwing my Nikons out the window. I can see that I'll be using two systems, each having its own merits and specific uses, and that's fine with me. While initially I had thought about getting an adapter for the Sony so that I could use my Nikon lenses on it I have now decided against that idea. I'll use the e-mount lenses on the Sony and the Nikon F-mount lenses on my Nikon DSLRs and everything will be just dandy.
Can't answer your question, Prodo, since I don't yet have the Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 lens. I'm still lusting after it.... In the past I never got into Leica or Zeiss, pretty much have been a Nikon Grrrl for many, many years. In fact, it really felt strange to me to be buying a camera and lenses which weren't Nikon. A day or two after the purchase, I was outside in a flower bed shooting a lily when a neighbor came along. She and I started chatting and she asked about the camera and I reflexively started to answer, "it's a Ni--...." caught myself, paused, and finally went on with, "uh...it's a Sony NEX-7."
The Sony NEX-7 is an amazing camera but I'm certainly not throwing my Nikons out the window. I can see that I'll be using two systems, each having its own merits and specific uses, and that's fine with me. While initially I had thought about getting an adapter for the Sony so that I could use my Nikon lenses on it I have now decided against that idea. I'll use the e-mount lenses on the Sony and the Nikon F-mount lenses on my Nikon DSLRs and everything will be just dandy.
Yep, agreed. My OVF is not going anywhere.
I still wish I had the 1080p 60fps of the NEX series.
dat slowmo.
Dang it's too hard to type EVF and OVF constantly on Dvorak.
The video component of the NEX-7 is something I haven't even tried out (except when accidentally hitting the "rec" button) and so I can't speak to that at all. I didn't buy the camera for its video capabilities, I bought it for its still capabilities. One big appeal of the NEX-7 was the EVF. I was adamant that any camera I bought was going to have some sort of viewfinder, because I've been using one for years and it feels more natural to me, not to mention that there is a greater likelihood of getting better shots when one is pressing the camera firmly up against one's face, thereby giving it some stability, as opposed to holding it out at arm's length..... Also, a viewfinder offers greater visibility in situations where there is bright sunlight.
For me, the choice of the Sony NEX system over a MFT system was also that it has a larger sensor, one which is the same size as my Nikon DX cameras, something which was immediately familiar and also something which offers more opportunities when it comes to shallow DOF, something which is important to me, especially when shooting macro. Everyone is going to have his own priorities when choosing a camera system, and those happened to be mine. Friends have been more than happy with their MFT systems, especially since they can use lenses from a couple of different manufacturers and also of course can use legacy lenses with adapters. There's something out here now for just about everyone, and isn't that grand?
For me, the choice of the Sony NEX system over a MFT system was also that it has a larger sensor, one which is the same size as my Nikon DX cameras, something which was immediately familiar and also something which offers more opportunities when it comes to shallow DOF, something which is important to me, especially when shooting macro. Everyone is going to have his own priorities when choosing a camera system, and those happened to be mine. Friends have been more than happy with their MFT systems, especially since they can use lenses from a couple of different manufacturers and also of course can use legacy lenses with adapters. There's something out here now for just about everyone, and isn't that grand?
Here are some photography books as well to get you started with your SLR.
Photography is an awesome field. Take your time with it, enjoy it, learn all you can, and most important of all... have fun!
Photography is an awesome field. Take your time with it, enjoy it, learn all you can, and most important of all... have fun!
Lot of good advice here already.
I'd go along with the buy the best lens you can afford advice. However, lenses can get really expensive really fast... but in general, since you'll be photographing your kid (moves around a lot) and may eventually be in places with poor lighting (birthday party/candle-blowing, recitals, etc), you'll want a fast lens. These lenses will have a lower f number (wider aperture). However, it will also give you a smaller depth of field (less of the photo is sharp and more has that blurry background look).
I'd definitely second the recommendation of getting a book. I TA-ed photography classes and used this book.
Better yet, I'd look into taking an intro photography class at a local college or university. You'll learn a lot there and hopefully get critiques and such in class.
Lastly, you may want to also look into investing in editing software (Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, or Photoshop Elements if you are on a budget) and learn how to use them (they all have steep learning curves as well). Using them is like developing your photos in a digital darkroom and can really improve your photos.
I'd say taking great photos involve good equipment, good technique/technical knowledge/good eye (can be developed), and good editing. If you can cover those three areas, you'd come out far ahead of many other people's photography
Oh one more thing... in terms of mirrorless vs DSLRs... both will probably do well with what you'd want. However, mirrorless cameras will have a smaller selection of quality lens and may not have quite the same image quality as an SLR (though make no mistake, they can still take great pictures). With the DSLR though, you're giving up compactness and weight. If you carry a camera all day (plus lenses), it can get really tiring and heavy!
With mirrorless, I've enjoyed using Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic models. With DSLRs, you can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon. If anybody says Nikon is FAR better than Canon (or vice versa), they're usually just fanboys along the lines of iPhone vs Android fanboys here. Go to a store, hold them, try them out, and pick the one that you are most comfortable with. And look if either system may have lenses you may be potentially interested in.
Hope that helps and happy (future) shooting!
I'd go along with the buy the best lens you can afford advice. However, lenses can get really expensive really fast... but in general, since you'll be photographing your kid (moves around a lot) and may eventually be in places with poor lighting (birthday party/candle-blowing, recitals, etc), you'll want a fast lens. These lenses will have a lower f number (wider aperture). However, it will also give you a smaller depth of field (less of the photo is sharp and more has that blurry background look).
I'd definitely second the recommendation of getting a book. I TA-ed photography classes and used this book.
Better yet, I'd look into taking an intro photography class at a local college or university. You'll learn a lot there and hopefully get critiques and such in class.
Lastly, you may want to also look into investing in editing software (Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, or Photoshop Elements if you are on a budget) and learn how to use them (they all have steep learning curves as well). Using them is like developing your photos in a digital darkroom and can really improve your photos.
I'd say taking great photos involve good equipment, good technique/technical knowledge/good eye (can be developed), and good editing. If you can cover those three areas, you'd come out far ahead of many other people's photography
Oh one more thing... in terms of mirrorless vs DSLRs... both will probably do well with what you'd want. However, mirrorless cameras will have a smaller selection of quality lens and may not have quite the same image quality as an SLR (though make no mistake, they can still take great pictures). With the DSLR though, you're giving up compactness and weight. If you carry a camera all day (plus lenses), it can get really tiring and heavy!
With mirrorless, I've enjoyed using Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic models. With DSLRs, you can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon. If anybody says Nikon is FAR better than Canon (or vice versa), they're usually just fanboys along the lines of iPhone vs Android fanboys here. Go to a store, hold them, try them out, and pick the one that you are most comfortable with. And look if either system may have lenses you may be potentially interested in.
Hope that helps and happy (future) shooting!
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I personally think that Nikon have better bodies but canon have better lenses.
But they are both practically the same, and people who argue about them are just silly.
A camera is just a tool.
If you want to really learn photography I'd suggest a cheap film slr for a few months. Shooting film will make you think more, slow you down, and help you learn all about making correct exposures.
But they are both practically the same, and people who argue about them are just silly.
A camera is just a tool.
If you want to really learn photography I'd suggest a cheap film slr for a few months. Shooting film will make you think more, slow you down, and help you learn all about making correct exposures.
A bit off topic, but do you find it a bit limiting that your lens doesn't go wider? Do you think you would prefer like the 15-85 or a 17-70?
Just to add to the ton of good advice...
I've got a nex5n and a canon DSLR.
If you want something small and portable the Nex is great. The video is really impressive.
But... in situations where I want really good shots I still go for the the Canon.
If I was in your position I'd probably buy a Canon 600d (or 550 etc). I'd also buy that plastic Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens. Less than £100 and tremendous value for money and play a lot with that.
I've got a nex5n and a canon DSLR.
If you want something small and portable the Nex is great. The video is really impressive.
But... in situations where I want really good shots I still go for the the Canon.
If I was in your position I'd probably buy a Canon 600d (or 550 etc). I'd also buy that plastic Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens. Less than £100 and tremendous value for money and play a lot with that.
Meh...your expensive glass is overrated. I'll take (begrudingly) a 300D and 18-55 MKI kit and some flashes over a $3000 DSLR and $10,000 worth of glass most any day of the week. But I shoot with light nearly always.
And that's a lie. If someone were to give me $13,000 worth of photography equipment, I'd buy some lights and shoot with that.
E-P3 and Canon DSLR here. Amazon is supposedly shipping my OM-D today. The E-P3 has been amazing it's just missing the ability to have a viewfinder with a hot shoe for me. Hauling around a 5D MKII with two lenses and a flash took up a lot more space than the E-P3 does on my motorcycle. I was more than happy to go to the beach with my Pen and two primes rather than lugging around my big bag with gripped camera, 4 lenses, flash, triggers, and other mis crap that weighs a ton.
In fact, I'm going to start shooting my personal stuff with the M43 camera more often so all I'm taking is a light camera bag an either my portable Dynalite kit or my speedlights.
There's a lot to be said for the small form factor of the EVIL cameras.
And that's a lie. If someone were to give me $13,000 worth of photography equipment, I'd buy some lights and shoot with that.
E-P3 and Canon DSLR here. Amazon is supposedly shipping my OM-D today. The E-P3 has been amazing it's just missing the ability to have a viewfinder with a hot shoe for me. Hauling around a 5D MKII with two lenses and a flash took up a lot more space than the E-P3 does on my motorcycle. I was more than happy to go to the beach with my Pen and two primes rather than lugging around my big bag with gripped camera, 4 lenses, flash, triggers, and other mis crap that weighs a ton.
In fact, I'm going to start shooting my personal stuff with the M43 camera more often so all I'm taking is a light camera bag an either my portable Dynalite kit or my speedlights.
There's a lot to be said for the small form factor of the EVIL cameras.
I find it quite relieving that I do not have to rely on a wide angle lens for those shots. It feels like I'm using a prime when I am limited by the 24mm angle (which rarely happens by the way). If it's really unbearable, I can switch to the old EF-S 18-55mm IS II (not the first version), which fills the gap from 18-24mm with a moderate f/3.5-4 aperture.