Thinking of picking up an entry-level DSLR to play with..

[otc]

Originally Posted by Milhouse

Over the years, I've gotten to the point where I can take flash photos that look natural. I've been trying to figure out a really hot flash look, but it is hard. I can't get it quite the way I want. Oh well. With time.

But I do understand the whole capturing things the way they are. . . I refuse to post process other than cropping and resizing. I like doing photography. . . not doing graphic design.

Flash can be necessary since the camera does not pick up an image quite like your eyes do...it is just hard to do it right (adding enough light to the scene to make the picture but not so much that it looks flashed).

As for post processing, I would highly suggest going a little further than cropping/resizing. People seem to think a little photoshop is a blasphemy of the digital age on all photos. The (unfortunate) truth is that all of the basic adjustments used to be done by your photo lab where as now they have to be done with camera raw and adjustment layers. Having a good lab (especially with larger format film or any 35mm you want to print bigger than 4x6) is a huge part of turning out photos that have professional looking color/contrast/brightness.

I'm not saying you should be in there perfecting things with the clone tool but adjusting the levels/curves (and the camera raw stuff if you shoot raw) is a prerequisite for turning out professional quality work.

 

[A Y]

If you want to seriously improve your flash photography, read Strobist. You will not look at flash the same way again. If you're serious about flash, Nikon is a better starter system for the sole reason that they have built-in wireless remote flash capability, but eventually it doesn't matter which one you pick if you get sufficiently serious.

--Andre

 

[Fulcannelli]

Originally Posted by A Y

If you want to seriously improve your flash photography, read Strobist. You will not look at flash the same way again. If you're serious about flash, Nikon is a better starter system for the sole reason that they have built-in wireless remote flash capability, but eventually it doesn't matter which one you pick if you get sufficiently serious.

--Andre

+100, strobist is a great site, lock your wallet after you get it though, it costs me a small fortune, just bought a nikon 900 and 600 flash and havn't even used them yet.

 

[Milhouse]

As for flash, an old photographer showed me how to do the natural look really easily. He yelled at me for a while about it. Then he set my camera to 1/60th and f8. He said "pick a distance and focus on what you want, then adjust your flash as necessary until you get a good look". He also told me with digital there is no excuse to have bad photos. Learned a lot really fast from that guy.

The PP stuff, yeah, I mess around on occasion and do stuff like convert to black and white and mess with sharpening and contrast. But I still get bored with that.

Actually, I just had an idea about flash now that I wrote that out. Might be a way to get the look I'm going for. Hmm.

 

[pulsewidth]

If you go the Nikon route, I'd suggest a model with an AF motor in the camera body, which the D40 and D60 don't have. This way, you're open to many more lenses that you would otherwise have to manually focus. A used D50 can be had for cheap on eBay.

 

[mr. burns]

yea, don't discount older models. you could get a lot more bang for your buck from that. it's not like cameras deteriorate over time. they're still excellent. i get great shots from a canon 10D and they blow up to 13x19 easily.

 

[otc]

Originally Posted by mr. burns

yea, don't discount older models. you could get a lot more bang for your buck from that. it's not like cameras deteriorate over time. they're still excellent. i get great shots from a canon 10D and they blow up to 13x19 easily.

+1

I use a canon D60 (why oh why did nikon have to reuse this name...makes it hard to google now since most sites talking about nikon still have the word canon) and it works jsut fine.

the ~6mp is a little low for some things and I want to upgrade at some point but the camera takes BEAUTIFUL photos compared to a point and shoot since so much is dependent on the lens.

Something like a canon 20D or 30d with some accessories/lenses should be a good option. They will take great shots and get you into something a little more prosumer level rather than the digital rebel series (although a used XTI would be a great camera too).

 

[Renault78law]

I respectfully disagree with some of the above posters. When it comes to digitial cameras, like other kinds of technology, I usually opt for the newer models. The high ISO shots coming from the D90 and D5000 are astounding. I think they are a vast improvement over prior models. Live view and video are nice features too, particularly if you are coming from a point and shoot.

Also, I can't under the reluctance to use flash. "Capturing things the way they are" is a cop out. Always go for the creatively correct exposure. Sometimes that means you use natural light, sometimes you use flash. Flash is just a tool, use it as necessary to create mood or whatever it is you want to convey. Even a photojournalist would use a flash if he needed it. The Stobist is a wonderful resource.

 

[DNW]

Originally Posted by Renault78law

Also, I can't under the reluctance to use flash. "Capturing things the way they are" is a cop out. Always go for the creatively correct exposure. Sometimes that means you use natural light, sometimes you use flash. Flash is just a tool, use it as necessary to create mood or whatever it is you want to convey. Even a photojournalist would use a flash if he needed it. The Stobist is a wonderful resource.

Photojournalists have to get the shots for their stories. I don't always need the shots. I prefer natural light because it gives off a warmth that is difficult to capture with a flash. That said, when it's dark enough, I too, cop out.

 

[Merckx]

You opt for newer model cameras, I opt for non flash photography. It's not a cop out, it's a preference. It's not that I can't or don't know how to use flash, I just prefer not to. Much like my sister prefers to shoot in a studio taking pictures of people, I would rather be outside shooting landscapes.

 

[Crane's]

The OP should look at the Sony Alpha line too. You can get in pretty cheap but if you want to get serious the sky's the limit. One thing worth noting is you can learn on an A200 yet you can pick up a 900 and start shooting almost immediately. Sony did a very good job at keeping things the same across all the models.

 

[Chiaroscuro]

Olympus and Sony earn an immediate bwahaha.

It's canon or nikon for entry level. Hell its canon or nikon up until high end digital medium format, but thats another topic. Like an early poster said both will get the job done, and both have their pros and cons. I shoot canon personally, but I have shot a few nikons. In my opinion the ergonomics, menu layouts, camera feel, and glass dont measure up to canon. Nikons arent bad just not my cup of tea. Make sure you try out both. See how they feel in your hand, and then make your choice.

 

[bmwnut]

Originally Posted by Chiaroscuro

Olympus and Sony earn an immediate bwahaha.

I'd think that the Olympus or Sony entry level DSLRs are just fine, provided that the purchaser isn't interested in going beyond taking some nice shots at a party or of flowers or whatever. Those entry level DSLRs are just fine. But the rub comes when you start buying various lenses to suit various needs, and start contemplating upgrading the camera body as the skill level rises. It's at that point that the Nikon vs. Canon question becomes important. Until lens accumulation occurs, most entry level DSLRs are fairly equal.

In addition to a Sony point and shoot and a Nikon DSLR (D70S, so fairly entry level), I'm picking up a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3K; I know a photographer for the Smithsonian that used one to shoot some motorsport (ALMS) pictures that I'd be hard pressed to get with my Nikon and the long range lens. Ultimately, it's knowing how to use the tool.

Jason

 

[aizan]

Originally Posted by Chiaroscuro

Olympus and Sony earn an immediate bwahaha.

It's canon or nikon for entry level. Hell its canon or nikon up until high end digital medium format, but thats another topic. Like an early poster said both will get the job done, and both have their pros and cons. I shoot canon personally, but I have shot a few nikons. In my opinion the ergonomics, menu layouts, camera feel, and glass dont measure up to canon. Nikons arent bad just not my cup of tea. Make sure you try out both. See how they feel in your hand, and then make your choice.

don't scoff at olympus and sony - who do you think introduced sensor dust filters, live view, articulated lcds on a dslr, in-body image stabilization, etc.? when it comes to dslrs with an aps-c or 4/3 sensor, i'd easily recommend an olympus, pentax, or sony over comparable canons and nikons. briefly, olympus has the best zoom lenses and is the most progressive. pentax has the best prime lenses and is the most traditional. sony has the most gadget appeal and is the most mainstream, along with canon and nikon. shopping for a camera might be daunting to the beginner, but market share is not a good reason to cross a brand off your list. rest assured, there is not a bad dslr on the market.

no doubt, nikon and canon make the best professional dslrs, and probably in that order. canon's reputation has slipped ever since unresolved autofocus problems cropped up in the mkiii dslrs. meanwhile, nikon proceeded to create the best sensors ever. the d700 also has markedly superior weather sealing than the 5dmkii. in any case, your entry level purchases should not be based on what is happening at the high end. canon, nikon, and sony essentially have separate systems for full frame and aps-c formats. don't buy an aps-c dslr if you're "planning" on eventually buying a full frame dslr.

 

[ManofKent]

I'm a D700 user, having graduated from a D200, but I picked up a used D50 a few months back and I'm very impressed with it.