Recommend me my first SLR

Olympus Penn EP1 EP2 no doubt. Great size, great glass, great camera

Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful responses... a few specifics..

Originally Posted by indesertum

Click to expand...

the question is do you really need a dslr?

Need, no. Want, yes. Eventually I will want to work my way up the scale, so figured why not. I also have a 1.5 yr old kid that likes to say "cheeeeese".

Originally Posted by indesertum

Click to expand...

also if you want i have a few photography books i dont need/read anymore. if you want to pay for shipping i can have them shipped out to you

Very much appreciated - will PM shortly.

Originally Posted by celeste_pista

Click to expand...

lumix dmc-gf2 (should be avail any day now) or the lumix dmc-g2 will fit the bill perfectly...

thanks - I will have a look.

Originally Posted by Avocat

Click to expand...

My question to the OP is, how involved/serious are you about E-bay auctions and photography in general? If you're looking for crisp detail, you'll want a macro lens
Hope this helps, and that Rockwell site is good advice, too. Cheers.

Pretty serious. Have you looked at my auctions? Its time to step my game up a bit.

Is a macro lens something separate that I would have to purchase aside from the initial rig? Right now I am just used to changing to the macro setting to get a closeup shot of a label or something, then clicking back to the standard settings. I would think it would be a pain ********** to switch a lens just to do that. (again, camera n00b)

Originally Posted by ysc

Click to expand...

I would get a basic second hand SLR made by someone respected, Nikon or Cannon or something, from a few years ago. At this point the limiting quality of your photographs is not going to be the number of megapixels and fancy bells and whistles the camera has.

It will still take better photos than anything else you have, will let you learn your way around the thing and decide if it is really for you, and when you have made your mind up you can buy something fancier.

Great advice, thank you.

Originally Posted by Cary Grant

Click to expand...

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.

Again, great advice, thanks Cary.

Originally Posted by afterglow

Click to expand...

Do you want to have more control over your camera and are willing to take the time to learn?? Or do you just want something that's "automatic" and will do your eBay and WAYWRN shots with minimum fuss???

I need to know your level of commitment/expectations before recommending something.

Im looking for minimal fuss, something that takes exponentially better pics than I am doing now, and something I can grow with and learn on should I develop the commitment to it that you are speaking of down the road.

Originally Posted by EMY

Click to expand...

It seems like you will be using you camera in "auto" mode most of the time and you want good image quality. I'd suggest you get a low end dslr and pair it with a high end lens, if kit is not good enough. The resale for lenses is very good so if you decide that you don't like it, you won't lose that much. Get something like a Nikon 3100.

I would want it to be as auto-ish as a P&S - just next level P&S... if that makes sense?

Thanks for the specifics. In your case, I'd go for a prosumer. Something like the Panasonic Lumix LX3 or LX5 or Canon G11 or G12. SLR's really need a higher level of commitment to perform their best. And you do need to switch lenses. The Micro 4/3 cameras have a role but have too many compromises IMHO. And you'll still need to switch lenses.

The prosumers have manual controls if you want to play around with them. They'll also do fine in their Auto modes. Plus their lenses and macro mode are very versatile.

Spoo - check your pms - I have just the thing for you.

I will tldr my thoughts:

dpreview.com is the definitive site for objective reviews.

Pretty much every camera that is DSLR / micro 4/3 class and above these days is a polished, good piece of equipment. There are no lemons. Just go with whatever camera feels good in your hand that will you enjoy using. We use the Panasonic GF1 and the Canon cheapo Rebel in the store as they are relatively cheap and practical.

Quality of lens is pretty important, just don't prioritize it over practicality. I see a lot of new users carrying very large, heavy, expensive lenses and ending up losing interest because it's just too much to lug around. The m4/3 cameras are nice in that respect, the GF1 is still my favourite camera for the moment. Getting a GF2 later this month.

Originally Posted by yfyf

Click to expand...

Getting a GF2 later this month.

Not holding out for the X-100?

Originally Posted by SpooPoker

Click to expand...

Is a macro lens something separate that I would have to purchase aside from the initial rig? Right now I am just used to changing to the macro setting to get a closeup shot of a label or something, then clicking back to the standard settings. I would think it would be a pain ********** to switch a lens just to do that. (again, camera n00b) I would want it to be as auto-ish as a P&S - just next level P&S... if that makes sense?
nowadays, kit lenses have a minimum focus distance of 25-28cm. taking pictures of clothing labels is not a problem. if you want a next level p&s, look into the so-called mirrorless cameras. imo, the ricoh gxr with the 50mm macro is the perfect WAYWT/ebay/food Appreciation camera.

Originally Posted by TRINI

Click to expand...

Not holding out for the X-100?

Gotta catch em all.

Originally Posted by afterglow

Click to expand...

Thanks for the specifics. In your case, I'd go for a prosumer. Something like the Panasonic Lumix LX3 or LX5 or Canon G11 or G12. SLR's really need a higher level of commitment to perform their best. And you do need to switch lenses. The Micro 4/3 cameras have a role but have too many compromises IMHO. And you'll still need to switch lenses.

The prosumers have manual controls if you want to play around with them. They'll also do fine in their Auto modes. Plus their lenses and macro mode are very versatile.

What do you mean?

I always say that an SLR is indicated if there is a need to take photos that are beyond the abilities of other cameras. Stuff like extreme telephotos, extreme close ups, extreme wide angle, extreme DOF effects, low-light, HDR, prints above 5x7, etc. If you're planning to take photos that a compact, prosumer or micro-4/3 can competently handle, I strongly recommend not getting an SLR.

In order to get the photos that make having an SLR worthwhile, you're going to have to either invest in glass, shoot in RAW or post-process. Things that the OP doesn't seem to be too keen on doing.

What the OP needs is something for eBay and WAYWRN shots. Not exactly pixel-peeper stuff. A prosumer will easily handle that. It's also much more compact than an SLR and is more likely to be used than an SLR rig. It also has enough manual controls and low-light ability to keep the OP busy should he want to explore photography.

Canon 550D / T2I - Also works as a stunning quality video camera. Example footage

Spoo, Firstly, as a former pro-phographer/photojournalist, I commend you on your decision to take photography to the next level. Although I don't make my living at photography anymore per se, I still do the occasional art show and it remains a very enjoyable hobby for me. Heck, I remember the chemicals and darkrooms, having done my own developing and enlargements. Digital photography only now in my opinion has (finally) caught up to the film cameras, and the available options out there today are endless. What follows is a very basic equipment tutorial: That said, and basically, the principles of film and digital photography are the same. Aside and apart from composition (how you frame/set up the photo -- ie. the image itself) hasn't changed, nor has the fact that the camera (the thing that takes the image) is in reality nothing more than a light tight box. I'm trying to keep this very simple for you, understanding fully that you are new to photography, which is very cool (and don't want to sound like a teacher or anything, or otherwise insult your intelligence, but yeah, like all things new, there's a learning curve, I well understand). So, with that in mind, changing a lens is not at all a problem or inconvenience today unlike in days old when doing so had the potential to expose your film to light if done wrong. It's why we all carried a minimum of two cameras in those days, to protect the film from unwanted exposure, and also to always be at the ready to shoot--i.e., if you have to change a lens in the middle of an action shot, the shot is lost. But that's a professional consideration, doesn't apply--at least not yet --the main concern at this stage when changing lens for you is that it won't affect your film since there's no film anymore--make sense? In other words, the inconvenience/problem of old is gone, so as to no longer be of any concern. Camera is a box: OK, with that out of the way, here goes: so, the camera is a box (that still remains the case today, think of it as your "brain", as it relates to the capturing/storage of the image). The lens is a separate attachment, and may be thought of as the eye. Different lenses do different things (like the eye opens up and closes, there being things like magnifying glasses etc. to see up really close (a macro lens), and telescopes to see far away (telephotos): principles which haven't changed. Lenses are your "eyes" (important): The real cost thus is in the lens. Their costs vary, depending on the quality of the glass, etc. It doesn't really matter what "box" you get, just keep in mind the available lenses out there, and that lenses aren't interchangeable among different brands. Ultimately, the rig (camera and lens, etc.) is only as good as the one using it, it being a tool as you know. Reason also why I suggested you start with a used DSLR. I myself shoot Nikon, having only switched over from film a few years ago (I had an entirely different set up, so went with Nikon as I had to re-buy all the lenses again ... I like that they are backwards compatible meaning they support their product, both old product and new, their new boxes working just as well with the old lenses as they do the new ones, though the new ones today all have autofocus capabilities (as do the boxes, they give you that option) such that you can point and shoot, working on your composition instead (ie your image, what it is you wish to capture). Learn as you shoot! Enjoy the Process: As you progress, you can play around with your features, etc. Great thing about digital photography is that it costs nothing to shoot images, unlike in the old days of course when you had to buy film (with costs of development, etc.). So, have fun with it, as it costs nothing but your time to learn With that, I agree with those here who say spend your money on lenses. These you can get used also, and there's always a market for used gear. At this stage, after reading ie Rockwell and others, the main thing is to pick a brand you're comfortable with, and stick with it. Once you're invested in lenses, that is your system. You can upgrade the box later, and use the same lenses. Canon is a good name also, they make great gear. My only beef with them is that, unlike Nikon, they aren't backwards compatible. (i.e., their older lenses don't work on their new boxes, but this may not be of a concern). That said, and in closing (already going on here, I know), I highly agree with those here who recommend you read up on photography--be it books, web tutorials or even a basic course. You might also consider joining a hobby group in your area. There are photo clubs out there, and once you start shooting, you might want to look into the Flickr website (mostly photo enthusiasts, but also some pros/semi-pros hang out there). Lots to consider, I know, but main thing is, like others here say, you get a system you're comfortable with, and just start shooting! (warn you, though, it's been known to become addictive So, where to start? Basic Kit (whatever the brand): In terms of starting off, all you need is a kit: i.e.., the camera itself and two lenses: a wide angle-portrait (28-70mm OR 35-80mm) and a tele-zoom (70-210mm OR 80-300mm). I also suggest a 60mm with macro function, but that's a specialty lens used for product shots mainly, depending on how much detail you want (i.e., great for fine details like watches and postage stamps, etc., so like all things, it depends: if your current P&S is fine for that, then you don't need it, and that's cool tl/DR: welcome to the wonderful world of DSLR photography -- so many options, once you pick your "box" just get your lenses and enjoy--i.e., just get out there and start shooting!!

Most important question is what will you be photographing? If solely for recreation, I would save your money and get a competitive P&S.

I say why spend the same amount of money on a fixed lens camera when you can get a M43 which gives you more options. Maybe youll just use the kit lens, but at least you have the option to venture out.

I remember http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml being a great resource.