or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Recommend me my first SLR
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Recommend me my first SLR - Page 3

post #31 of 71
Canon EOS Digital Rebel T2i w/18-55 IS Lens Kit + a 16GD sandisk ultra 2 card + a slr holster case and a 58mm UV, Polarizer & FLD Deluxe Filter kit for $779 Nikon D5000 kit + DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED IS + 4GB Card + Carrying case 750$ at Costco Canon EOS Rebel T1i Digital SLR Camera w/ EF-S 18-55mm Lens IS Kit: $527 or less + Tax Nikon D3100 Digital SLR Camera 14.2 Megapixels w/ 18-55MM VR Lens $574 AC at Tiger I am not saying these are the best deals ever (they weren't posted to the front page of slickdeals...just a few I found with a quick search) but they are fairly typical of offers that I see. At the entry level, a lot of cameras are sold as "kits" which include the body and a lens. The kit lenses are usually not so great (but better than your average point and shoot). A lot of the deals will throw you a second lens and some accessories which might get you a better lens (but don't pay extra for a second lens that turns out to suck...read some reviews) Higher level cameras are usually going to be body only so you need to buy lenses to shoot. This is where you get tied in to canon/nikon (or olympus or sony...but only do that if you don't actually care about your lens options). Sure, you can switch by ebaying all of your glass and buying new...but it is easier to stick with one manufacturer. As far as canon vs nikon goes...canon's top end "L" lenses are better but at the low end, there really isn't much differance. Nikon's camera bodies seem to have a little edge right now on the consumer level but they go back and forth on that technology all the time with canon and they are pretty comparable. Basically when you buy into a system it doesn't really matter unless you have really specific needs (like "need to use canon's 70-200 f2.8 IS L series lens"). You could decide based on whatever gives you the best package deal when you are buying or which ever body feels better in your hand or which one is prettier and it wouldn't matter (I shoot canon because my pro-photographer father shoots canon and I have one of his old bodies). EDIT: One big pro for nikon in my mind is the SB-400 flash unit ...I am intensely jealous of this thing as a canon user. If you don't want to have a big full size flash unit and you don't like the crappy built in flash, this thing rocks. Canon's current mini flash has bad reviews and their last model sticks out at least twice as far as the nikon unit.
post #32 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post
Canon EOS Digital Rebel T2i w/18-55 IS Lens Kit + a 16GD sandisk ultra 2 card + a slr holster case and a 58mm UV, Polarizer & FLD Deluxe Filter kit for $779 Nikon D5000 kit + DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED IS + 4GB Card + Carrying case 750$ at Costco Canon EOS Rebel T1i Digital SLR Camera w/ EF-S 18-55mm Lens IS Kit: $527 or less + Tax Nikon D3100 Digital SLR Camera 14.2 Megapixels w/ 18-55MM VR Lens $574 AC at Tiger I am not saying these are the best deals ever (they weren't posted to the front page of slickdeals...just a few I found with a quick search) but they are fairly typical of offers that I see. At the entry level, a lot of cameras are sold as "kits" which include the body and a lens. The kit lenses are usually not so great (but better than your average point and shoot). A lot of the deals will throw you a second lens and some accessories which might get you a better lens (but don't pay extra for a second lens that turns out to suck...read some reviews) Higher level cameras are usually going to be body only so you need to buy lenses to shoot. This is where you get tied in to canon/nikon (or olympus or sony...but only do that if you don't actually care about your lens options). Sure, you can switch by ebaying all of your glass and buying new...but it is easier to stick with one manufacturer. As far as canon vs nikon goes...canon's top end "L" lenses are better but at the low end, there really isn't much differance. Nikon's camera bodies seem to have a little edge right now on the consumer level but they go back and forth on that technology all the time with canon and they are pretty comparable. Basically when you buy into a system it doesn't really matter unless you have really specific needs (like "need to use canon's 70-200 f2.8 IS L series lens"). You could decide based on whatever gives you the best package deal when you are buying or which ever body feels better in your hand or which one is prettier and it wouldn't matter (I shoot canon because my pro-photographer father shoots canon and I have one of his old bodies). EDIT: One big pro for nikon in my mind is the SB-400 flash unit ...I am intensely jealous of this thing as a canon user. If you don't want to have a big full size flash unit and you don't like the crappy built in flash, this thing rocks. Canon's current mini flash has bad reviews and their last model sticks out at least twice as far as the nikon unit.
Excellent post. Just one quibble though: Canon's L lenses are not better than Nikon's top glass (Nikon's 17-35 for e.g. have an extra stop over Canon's), Nikon primes being better, but Canon's zooms are as good and definitely more affordable than are Nikon's, which is something the OP may wish to consider down the road, I agree. (As to the 70-200 f2.8, whether Nikon or Canon, it's a religious experience the first time you use one, these being the two main brands for a reason). Sigh, if only the glass were hand polished like in the old days, like Blad/Zeiss, all being done by machines now and have for some time, but no one other than fractal pixel-peepers will notice, so it's all good
post #33 of 71
id get a Nikon D3100. no question. or look around for a D40. you can find those on the used market for a steal. great cameras.
post #34 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avocat View Post
Excellent post. Just one quibble though: Canon's L lenses are not better than Nikon's top glass (Nikon's 17-35 for e.g. have an extra stop over Canon's), Nikon primes being better, but Canon's zooms are as good and definitely more affordable than are Nikon's, which is something the OP may wish to consider down the road, I agree. (As to the 70-200 f2.8, whether Nikon or Canon, it's a religious experience the first time you use one, these being the two main brands for a reason). Sigh, if only the glass were hand polished like in the old days, like Blad/Zeiss, all being done by machines now and have for some time, but no one other than fractal pixel-peepers will notice, so it's all good

I feel that some of the Nikon "gold ring" lenses are overrated. Cannot compare to Canon equivalent though. Nikon 17-55 seems about the same as 18-55, except for the f2.8.
post #35 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post
Higher level cameras are usually going to be body only so you need to buy lenses to shoot. This is where you get tied in to canon/nikon (or olympus or sony...but only do that if you don't actually care about your lens options).
eek, this is the kind of sweeping generalization n00bs need to be weary of. people can decide for themselves if a brand makes the lenses they need, and if those lenses are good enough. olympus specializes in zooms, and the optical quality of the whole system is easily the best on the market. if you shoot aps-c and prefer prime lenses, pentax is the only game in town. sony's got aps-c covered, but their full frame lineup needs to expand and be refreshed if they want to attract pros. they still have the basics and some top notch carl zeiss lenses. then there's leica. enough said. the number of lenses beginners go for is much more limited (this is a good read: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...n-part-ii.html), though every brand is missing something at this moment. canon doesn't have a fast, normal ef-s prime, for example.
post #36 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary Grant View Post
Spoo- a recent thread I started here. Since you said you know "nothing" in this regard and are mostly shooting ebay pics and WAYWN... take a look at the Olympus and Panasonic Micro 4/3's... several regulars here use them, PG, YFYF and others... they ahve the convenient size and ease of P&S' and are in your price range. Plus they do afford the ability to change lenses if you really get into it.
i use a gf1 for my seller pics. its easy to do with the gf1 and if you use good lighting (good old mid day/mid morning sun light) post processing not needed. here are a few examples: http://www.styleforum.net/showthread...light=red+wing http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.p...&postcount=493 I use a gf1 with 20mm pancake lens (prime lens - meaning no zoom just use your arms and distance to focus). And the pics that come out are great and so easy to do. I also did learn all the basic photography stuff eventually which helps when you need to manipulate something to your needs. But if the light is right the camera basically does all the work. upping your photography game helps tremendously with ebay auctions/seller threads. i don't really need to sell stuff but it has become a bit of an addiction for me because I like to keep my closets clean and well if you take good enough of pictures of adequate sellable items you can sell anything (lol)!
post #37 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMY View Post
I feel that some of the Nikon "gold ring" lenses are overrated. Cannot compare to Canon equivalent though. Nikon 17-55 seems about the same as 18-55, except for the f2.8.
Everyone has their favorite, and that's cool That said, I shoot FX (full frame) format (Nikon D3 with the D700 backup, professional series with professional lenses, and (sadly) professional prices, too. Nikon metal, with Nikon's AF, speed and handling being superior (D3 being the fastest on the market, choice of sports photogs and photojournalists, the D700 costs much less than the D3 hence the choice for most studio work, and also wedding photogs who don't need the D3). Canon 5D Mark II is the best Canon's got, but it's not as good as Nikon's D700 much less the D3 (D700 even costs slightly less than the Canon's 5D). Canon's 5D is mostly plastic and can't nail moving shots in dim light, which the D700 does effortlessly (but not as good as the D3 does). To be fair to Canon's 5D, though, it has more pixels for the price than Nikon's D700 if looking to render everything at 20x30 (but I use medium format when shooting that size up, as 35mm sensors--which is what FX is--weren't meant to go beyond a certain size, at least not professionally). But if I was doing stills, portraits and non-action stuff, and could only have one camera, does the price of glass (lenses) count? You bet (and well put, now I wish they'd lower their price ) In terms of entry level and mid-market DX format (standard DSLR) cameras and kits, though, either Nikon or Canon fit the bill nicely, I agree (and Canon's a good maker, always has been, and I'd never say otherwise). EDIT: it's the f2.8 stop on the Nikon--i.e., fast/low light--that makes that pro lens worth the price, but otherwise, Canon and Nikon in terms of pro line lenses are equivalent, and I totally agree with you that Canon's pro line's better priced (all depends on what you're shooting)
post #38 of 71
Avocat: any suggestion on cheap upgrades to my canon D60 (not 60D)? I don't really want to jump on the rebel series but I am not sure where on the used market I will get the best value...something like a 30D or a 40D? I am not sure how the rebel model numbering works so I don't even know where to start there (or what features I lose out on going to consumer entry level...the only rebel I have played with didn't even have a separate screen for exposure information and spammed the integrated flash instead of using a focus assist light)
post #39 of 71
^^^I just sent you a PM, OTC (and my pleasure
post #40 of 71
I wonder if anyone posting here has even read the op.
post #41 of 71
CDFS, with the greatest of respect, have you read the responses to the OP? Not only did we give him links to great resources, where he can read up on all things digital photography as well as equipment, etc., but we're also providing him with a book! In addition, we found out from him what he is looking to do, which is important in order to know what to recommend. Moreover, we explained to him some very basic things about cameras, how they work including lenses, and we also found for him DSLR kits (cameras and lenses) which fit not only what he wants to do, but which are also in his stated budget. I think that, together, we did a pretty good job actually
post #42 of 71
Thread Starter 
You guys did do an awesome job. Thanks for all the thoughtful replies, its really appreciated. Im fine tuning needs/budget at the moment, and thanks to your help, its a little less daunting as to what to look for. Thank you!
post #43 of 71
Rereading some posts; you're probably right. I recalled only reading of the Nikon F5 and Canon 1D Mark XVII, but perhaps that was another thread.
post #44 of 71
avocat- is the Nikon 50mm 1.4 worth the extra $200 over the 50 1.8? I am not a pro and just shoot for fun.

OP- the 50mm f1.8 is a very good value. It should probably be one of the first lenses you buy. Both Canon and Nikon has a version for about $100.
post #45 of 71
not if the dslr has an aps-c sensor. nikon makes a 35/1.8 dx, but canon hasn't gotten around to it yet.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Recommend me my first SLR