Need SLR camera advice

[Balog]

My wife really enjoys photography, and has been looking to get more serious about it. I can understand her frustration with our current point n' click digital, but I'm a bit put off by the prices on some of the SLR's.

So what would you advise for someone just breaking in to serious photography on a budget? Any especially good bargains to look for, or overhyped models to avoid? How much camera does a newb really need, anyway? I don't want to do the photographic equivalent of shelling out for a 1/4 moa sniper rifle for someone just learning to shoot who won't be able to take advantage of the gear.

[Brad Johnson]

Film or digital?

In either case, it may be better to buy a used body and put your money into glass.

Brad

[zahc]

I just bought a Pentax ME on a popular internet auction site for $15. It was right next to a Pentax Program Plus (a better camera) that was buy-it-now for $30. These cameras are well-crafted, have great lenses and are very fun to shoot with.

Are you sure you want to buy a digital SLR camera?

[Balog]

She seems to be pretty certain about an SLR. :) I'm trying to understand if that's a real need, but offhand I'd say it is.

Brad: preferably digital. I know film can be great, but with development costs, the hassle of putting the resulting pics online, inability to touch up slightly off pics (easily, anyway) etc digital seems like a winner.

I've considered the "used body, better glass" idea, but I'm unsure how to inspect a digital cam for wear and tear.

[zahc]

You can have your film at eat it too, you know. There's nothing stopping your from scanning your film. For color work, tradigital is the way to go. Classic, cheap cameras, classic film looks, digital editing, and rewarding.

Besides being able to buy very nice prosumer manual-focus SLR cameras from the 80s for pocket change, you can also buy the most badass of Nikon 35mm pro-level SLR cameras used for a couple hundred bucks. Cameras like the F4, and F100. We're talking a camera that in terms of build quality is completely out of the league of even a $450 Nikon D40, which is the lowest of the low-end Nikon DSLR, and will also be replaced by a better model in a few short months. If you ask me, buying DSLR cameras is a sucker's game.

[Nick1911]

I personally own a D70.  I recently bought a D60 for my wife.

Both have been awesome cameras for non-professionals like us.  The kit lenses are reasonably good, IMO.

[Werewolf]

SLR is definitely the way to go.

Don't scrimp and buy a cheap one. You can always resell the really good stuff as they are timeless. I'm a Nikon guy myself and have used their cameras and lenses since 1972 when I took up photography as one of my hobbies. I owned a Nikon F2 film camera until I discovered digital about 5 years ago (I now have a D-70s). That F2 worked as well on the last day I owned it as it did on the 1st day I bought it. Dropped it out of a jeep going about 15mph once onto a paved road in '72 or '73. Went back and picked it up off the road. You could barely tell it was scratched and it worked fine. Yes indeedy - I swear by Nikon.

Digital is the way to start. When learning one can take many many shots of the same subject varying shutter speed, aperture, distance, angle etc and see what works and what doesn't almost for free compared to a film camera.

Memory for digitals is now very cheap. 2Gb memory which is good for 1000's of shots can be bought for less than $40 (last time I bought memory was well over a year ago - probably cheaper now). Buy two. I do not recommend the 4Gb sticks.

Get her a good tri-pod (not cheap - 100+ to 300+) it will be indispensable to her especially if she gets into portrait or nature photography.

Photography is a great way to have a lot of fun, express one's artistic side and even get some exercise if one is into nature photography.

[Balog]

Zahc: the only way to improve is lots of practice. The cost and hassle of buying film then developing a few thousand pics, then scanning them (how much does a good scanner cost these days?) more than offset the super cheap bodies. Not to mention storing all those physical copies....
So no, I don't think digital is only for suckers. I'm happy you have found what works for you, but don't dump all over anyone who has different needs.

[Brad Johnson]

Zahc, sorry buddy bit I have to vehemently disagree.  Film bodies may be cheap but film and processing aren't, and it's getting more expensive by the day.  Figure a minimum of $10 per roll for film and processing costs.  Shoot ten rolls and you might get ten really good shots, and that's after you become pretty well versed in photography and get comfortable with your camera.  That's $10 per usable shot.  Before enlargements or reprints.

No, digital is the way to go, especially for beginners.  Once you have the camera in hand you can shoot thousands of pictures for no expense other than what it costs to recharge the batteries.  Digital gives instant feedback, giving the novice photog a distinct advantage over having to wait for developing and hoping they remember what they did or didn't do for a particular shot.  I shot on a Canon Elan IIe for years and though I was pretty good.  Once I went digital my skills improved by several orders of magnitude.  The reasons were simple ... A) I could shoot with abandon, trying all kinds of different stuff that would have cost me a fortune in film and processing, and B) I knew instantly that the shot was good/bad and could learn right then and there what worked and what didn't.

Balog,

What's your budget?

You can get a new Rebel XS kit (10mp, and includes the 18-55 EF-S lens) for under five bills at B&H Photo.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/571144-REG/Canon_2762B003_EOS_Rebel_XS_a_k_a_.html

With a little patience you can probably find an older generation D-Reb for under $300. 

Don't go falling all over yourself trying to out-megapixel your neighbors.  Put your money in glass.  For all practical purposes, a sensor is a sensor.  It's the quality of light reaching it that makes all the difference.  You can have the most fabulo-tastic bazillion gigapixel body in the world, but strap crappy glass on it and your images will look suffer.

Even the cheapest film or digital body will benefit from the luxurious touch of a truly good lens.  Heck, I shoot with an original 6mp D-Reb.  It's slow to boot, is pushed to make two frames a second, is noisy as heck on all but ISO 100, and only has a three shot buffer when in large/fine pix mode.  Even with those limitations it's still a great camera.  Outfitted with L-Series Canon glass and it's perfectly fine for prints up to 8x10's and posters up to 20x30.  Here's an example.  (Apologies to the folks with dial-up).

[Harold Tuttle]

digital makes you a better shooter faster

digital also has little/no dollar cost associated with burning 200 images at a birthday party

Either get a Nikon or a Canon

Point & shoot is OK, but nothing beats a real mirror tipping at exactly the moment you press the button

a first generation canon rebel d300 is very cheap and is a good start
Canon EOS Digital Rebel Camera with 18-55 & 75-300 lens
Current bid:   US $132.49
http://tinyurl.com/dkv87t


film is dead, I watched the transparency hardware go in the dumpster at Natty Geo

[Balog]

Nice shot Brad!

The budget is pretty open. We are going to be setting aside some money each month for it, so it's mostly a matter of how soon we'll get it. Obviously the least expensive model that will fit our needs is what we are going for; less for the body is more for lenses, tripods, classes etc.

[AJ Dual]

Mrs. Dual and I pooled our x-mas gift money and got a Nikon D60 kit that included a AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR for wider angle, general use, and a AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G zoom for longer tighter shots.

IIRC, the whole package ran us well under $700, $680 or so. We also got some extra generic compatible LiOn batteries, for very cheap, and a no-name 8Gb SD card. (make sure it's "class 6" high-speed) from Amazon.com based on good user reviews.

It's already making a huge difference in the photos of our kids we're taking. Just having a narrower depth of field with out of focus backgrounds gives some types of portrait photos a much more professional look. And actually KNOWING where the autofocus rangefinder is picking up from the little targets in the viewfinder is worth it alone.

[Brad Johnson]

I'd budget $450 for the body and at least twice that for eventual lens purchases.  Don't panic, though.  The 18-55 kit lens (an EF-S series) is perfectly fine for everyday shots and will keep you happily snapping for a long time.  In fact, I've seen some truly stunning images taken with them.  Upgrade to the good stuff when you start running into roadblocks (things like lens speed, soft focus, chromatic aberration)

I use Canon L-Series, but that's because I wanted to have the fastest glass possible in anticipation of a much higher end camera body in a year or two.  I also like the ability to do some really extreme crops and other photo editing goodies.  For everyday stuff and run-of-the-mill creative things you could easily use some of the mid-range offerings from Tamron or Sigma with wonderful results.  

BE SURE YOU GET REGULAR LENSES!  There are a bunch of lenses out right now that are specifically designed for consumer DSLRs, which have sensors slightly smaller than the standard 35mm film frame.  You can use a regular lens on a digital, but not the reverse.  If you have a stable of standard lenses you can upgrade from your beginner DSLR to a full-frame prosumer SLR without worry.  Canon's EF-S and Tamron's Di series are both made specifially for digitals with the APS-C sensor.  They work beautifully on the Digital Rebels and D30/40/50, but not on anything else.

AJ, I'd be careful.  Those "no-name" memory cards have a nasty habit of failing at the wrong time.  Check the photo forums for example after hearwrenching example of irreplaceable photos being lost because of a few bucks saved on a card.  Spend the money for good memory.  And (and this can't be said enough) BACK UP YOUR PHOTOS!!!!  Often, and on multiple sets of media.  Nothing like losing a couple thousand shots because your hard drive decides to eat itself for breakfast.

Brad

[go_bang]

You don't need to get an SLR to get a "good camera".  Several of the major players have one or more high end compact models that have all the same features minus the ability to change lenses and improved high ISO performance.  Here are a few examples of what I am talking about:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091703canon_sx1is_sx10is.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_cpp6000.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/

But before I get more into that, what is it exactly that you and your wife consider "serious photography"?  What exactly is she looking for?  When most people think "serious photography" they tend to think they need an SLR because that is what advertising has trained them for and that is always what they see "serious photographers" using.  However, the only "serious photographers" most people have seen are news and wedding photographers.  That's only a small subset of what photography can be.  Serious photography has much more to do with compositon, form, lighting, and knowing how to get the image you want than it does with the the kind of camera you use.  Also, what you are using to process your images is much more important than the kind of camera you use.  With digital, software can correct a lot of the shortcomings that used to be showstoppers such as lens distortion and color fringing.  You can have the best camera in the world, but if your processing your images on a computer with a lousy monitor and lousy software you're defeating the purpose.

[zahc]

I didn't mean to offend anyone. At the end of the day, digital cameras and film cameras are fundamentally different, so there's no point in arguing about the degree of their equivalence. Digital cameras make digital images but cannot make film negatives (photographs), but film negatives can be scanned. For those that only care about 'images' with no concern for genuine photographic process, the distinction is meaningless, and thus the legions of people that think digital cameras can replace film ones.

Speaking of cost? I have 5 very nice, classic, good-looking film cameras with nice prime lenses, that I bought for less than it would have cost me for ONE ugly, consumer-grade D40 with the average quality kit lens. The price of film is trivial IMO, and it's a fallacy to directly compare the costs to digital. What people forget is, that film costs money but you actually keep the film, it's not like it goes away. All negatives I've taken in the past two years are in a 3-ring binder on the bookshelf in addition to the hard drive; I still have it. If you want to make photographs you still have to buy film, and digital hasn't changed that...since digital cameras don't make photographs at all.

In addition, I think DSLRs are a foolish technology, and if I was to buy a digital camera I would either buy a good P&S or one of the better compact cameras (such as the micro 4/3s ones). The DSLR is a hodgepodge carryover from film technology, that doesn't do justice to the possibilities of digital technology

You could blow nearly a thousand dollars on Digital equipment, or get started with a classic film camera and a roll of film that will make equivalent images for pocket money. Regardless of the relative merits of film and digital cameras, I still think it makes a certain sense to go with film. I'm not the only one that thinks so.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/free-digital-camera.htm

[Brad Johnson]

Several of the major players have one or more high end compact models that have all the same features minus the ability to change lenses and improved high ISO performance.

For the sime price as an entry-level DSLR, the "high-end" compact P&S gives you
-Comprimised optics
-Slow focus
-Less control (or less easily controlled)
-No ability to mount accessories
-No expandability

Brad

[zahc]

For the sime price as an entry-level DSLR, the "high-end" compact P&S gives you
-Comprimised optics
-Slow focus
-Less control (or less easily controlled)
-No ability to mount accessories
-No expandability

Brad

-lighter weight
-smaller size
-faster FPS (up to 1000 in some)
-intrinsic live-view which is a superior way to compose pictures
-quieter

[go_bang]

For the sime price as an entry-level DSLR, the "high-end" compact P&S gives you
-Comprimised optics
-Slow focus
-Less control (or less easily controlled)
-No ability to mount accessories
-No expandability

Brad

Most of what you just listed is wrong.

[Balog]

Zahc: sooooo, other than the fact that you don't like digital and the cheap bodies, what advantage does film have for a beginner? Also, care to address the instant response (and thus increased learning curve), the extra effort of scanning, the storage of pics, the need to develop pics to see which are worth having, the guaranteed loss if you practice bracketing etc etc......

It vexes me when fan boys come into a thread just to show how superior they are because of their choice of camera (gun, car, music style etc). Either contribute something useful (snobbery != useful) or feel free to gtfo of this thread.

[Balog]

OP: "I'd like advice about what handgun to buy."
Response: "Use a rifle instead!"

/sigh

[zahc]

OP: "I'd like advice about what handgun to buy."
Response: "Use a rifle instead!"

The title of the thread says SLR camera. SLR cameras have been around about 4 decades before digital came along. Also, it was specifically mentioned that

I'm a bit put off by the prices on some of the SLR's....I don't want to do the photographic equivalent of shelling out for a 1/4 moa sniper rifle for someone just learning to shoot who won't be able to take advantage of the gear.

-
-

other than the fact that you don't like digital and the cheap bodies, what advantage does film have for a beginner?

Well, if you want to make (real) photographs, you are going to need film. Digital doesn't help with that at all. Digital image capture is not the same thing as real photography. If you think digital is a substitute for film, and you are happy with that, that's great. Shoot it then. It's not the same thing though. And regardless, it is drastically cheaper to get into shooting film with nice cameras, which benefits the beginner. Digital makes sense if:

-you never need to take very long exposures
-you don't mind being tied to a workflow that is dependent on computers, charged batteries, and inkjet printers
-you don't mind the drastically higher startup costs in the form of disposable consumer electronic 'cameras'
-you only work in color (because digital B&W is a joke, please, just say no)
-you don't care about traditional photographic process/having tangible negatives/physical media
-you actually like using modern digital cameras, compared to far nicer, quality built, better looking, and more satisfying to use film cameras that can be had at 1/10th the price
-you have no soul, and don't understand the emotional appeal of slides or silver prints

None of these points apply to me. Different strokes for different folks.

[go_bang]

Digital image capture is not the same thing as real photography.

Photography is about making photographs.  A photograph is making a drawing with light.  The tools and processes you use to make the photograph are irrelevent with regards to whether or not you made a "real" photograph.  Digital, silver halide, albumen process, etc doesn't matter so long as your happy with the results.

[Balog]

And regardless, it is drastically cheaper to get into shooting film with nice cameras, which benefits the beginner.

Setting aside the arrogant, condescending fan boy babble, this statement is totally untrue. A roll of film is ~$5. 25 pics per. I can burn through a couple hundred shots in an hour just messing around. That's $40 not counting development. And I have to pay more per shot to have it developed. And I have to buy a scanner.

[Racehorse]

-you never need to take very long exposures

You can take very long exposures with digital cameras just fine.

-you actually like using modern digital cameras, compared to far nicer, quality built, better looking, and more satisfying to use film cameras that can be had at 1/10th the price

That's all your subjective opinion.

-you have no soul, and don't understand the emotional appeal of slides or silver prints

This just reeks of condescension and screams "fanboy."

There's nothing inherently better about film. Both film and digital have their pros and cons. You prefer film. That's great. Just because others prefer digital does not mean that they're ignorant, stupid, or soulless.

[Gewehr98]

Forum owner Oleg Volk, who's probably forgotten more about photography than I could ever hope to learn, could write a book on the transition to digital, and how it's replacing film-based photography in the media world. 

Monkeyleg is another professional photographer that could set the record straight.

Food for thought, as it were.