Digital SLR Questions

[dogmush]

Having done a search on here, and spent the last 4 days reading about photography, I'm almost scared to post this (you guys know a lot more about photography then I do) but here goes.

My wife and I think we've progressed beyond the scope of our digital P&S's.  We went on vacation this summer, and were pretty unhappy with how our pictures came out.

Some Examples:



The Otter wasen't THAT far away, but I had to crank into digital zoom on my camera, and it got all grainy, plus the auto-focus could't hold.  I took a bunch of pictures to get one even that clear, and I missed a bunch of cool stuff because of the time between when I hit the button, and when the shutter finally tripped.

On the landscape, it just seems way more washed out then it actually was.  The camera made it seem almost hazy, when the air was clear.  This part I think could be helped with pulling the camera off of auto and playing with exposure settings , but still.

So I'm looking for a good camera, that takes pictures with little shutter lag, takes multiple pictures quickly (for moving animals), does good with a telephoto, a wide angle, and macro. I need it to take pictures in doors and out, and overcast and sunny. Not asking for too much, right? Research has lead me to believe that this combination of features will take an SLR, and a couple good lenses.  So I began combing the internet and hitting the big box stores to play with demos.  Here's where I'm at:

We narrowed it down to Nikon or Canon from reviews (and ya'll's threads) and down to Canon from playing with the demo's.  The Canon seems faster on both the auto-focus and start-up times, and feels better to both of us, so we're thinking an Xsi body, and some lenses.  I've combed through Amazon, Ebay and B and H and looked at different kits.  The XSi seemes to come kinda standard with an 18-55 image stabilized lens, and then we're gonna need a telephoto.  I have zeroed in on this guy on E-bay because his kits give me tripods, bags and other stuff that it seems like I would need to play around with a new hobby.  Here's the two kits I'm looking at:

Expensive one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-CANON-EOS-Rebel-XSi-450D-Digital-Camera-5-Lens-Kit_W0QQitemZ130339767097QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDigital_Cameras?hash=item1e58db0339
More expensive one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-EOS-Rebel-XSi-450D-SLR-5-lens-18-55-IS-70-300-IS_W0QQitemZ130341793185QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDigital_Cameras?hash=item1e58f9eda1

I figure the snap-on telephoto and wide angle doodads are a gimick, and the memory cards will be replaced with good fast memory, but the back-pack, tripod,filters, and various other doodads seem like they might come in handy. The 50mm f/1.8 lens gets good reviews from just about everyone, so it seemed worth getting.

Which brings us finally to my questions:
1.) I have read in 500 spots not to skimp on the lenses, and the primary first use of this camera system ( I think it qualifies as a system at this point) whill be long-range wildlife photo's in Africa next year. (wifey and I are hitting the Serengeti) does the extra $400 for the stabilized, USM telephoto need to be spent?  For things like tracking a running Lion at (one hopes) a couple hundered yards do I need IS?

2.) The secondary and ter..terti..3rd (stupid spell check is down) use will be landscapes and taking cool pictures of my guns respectivly.  Will the other two lenses cover that?

3.) Did I miss something?  Is there some compelling reason not to buy this camera or Canon lenses that I don't know? 

4.)$1500 really is the end of my budget (actually $1000 was, but telephoto lenses ain't cheap) but I'd rather buy what I need now, then wish I'd spent another $100 later.  Does that body and lens package seem good quality?

5.)Can anyone suggest some good how-to books?  I've already had to learn about F-stops and ISO equivalents, so I'd like to learn to use this gadget decently.  My plan is to buy in the next week or so, so I can spend a while taking a lot of pictures and learning how to use the camera.

and

6.)  Did I miss anything?

I know a bunch of you folks are pretty acomplished photographers, so any advice you can throw my way before I embarke on a new hobby would be great.

[BobR]

I know nothing about the Canon line of cameras, but recently did a vacation with my new Nikon D60 with AF and VR. I learned I need a better lens (as in bigger). No matter what kind of photography you do, you will need a bigger lens. I think I will go with a max of 300 for my next one. And then start saving my money for a serious lens.

I am not sure how the image stabilization works on the Canon, but it is superb on the Nikon.

This is from the Monterey Aquarium using existing (not much) light. I was taking pictures in light I would not have even tried without a stabilized lens.




You may want to save your money on the telephoto at this time and possibly rent a very good lens for your trip to Africa. Way back when, I did a trip to Nairobi courtesy of Uncle Sam and I had a 300mm lens on my Olympus film camera and it wasn't enough lens for most things out on the savanna.

bob

[never_retreat]

I have a Nikon D80 (discontinued) w/ 18-135 lens. I have needed more lens but it is a good all around size.
I have taken a few pictures that I have even shocked myself with.
Here is a few taken this summer

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The problems you describe are due to crummy lenses, not necessarily crummy cameras.  Sadly, with point and shoot cameras, the lens is inseparable from the camera, so there's nothing you can do about it.

When you buy your SLR, skimp on the body and buy good lenses.  At any given price point, prime lenses are usually better than zooms.  If it were me, I'd go with a basic wide angle (either 28/2.0 or 35/2.0), a normal (50/1.8 or 50/1.4), and I'd rent one or two super-nice telephotos for the trip.  

A good tripod does amazing things.  They make any lens perform much better than it would without a tripod.  Note that this only applies to good tripods, not the crummy ones that come with camera kits.  I like Bogen for legs and Really Right Stuff for ball heads and attachments.

IS is nice, but it's no substitute for a real tripod.  

Check out keh.com for buying used cameras and lenses.  Their 'bargain' grade stuff is indeed a bargain.

EDIT:  I forgot that DSLRs do that focal length crop thingie.  So make your wide angle lens something like 18mm (do they make prime lenses 18mm long?) and your normal 35mm or so.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Also, I suspect that most of the goodies included in those ebay kits are junk.  It might be nice to have all that stuff and still stay under budget, but you'll be kicking yourself in the middle of Africa when you find out that none of it works worth a darn.  Penny wise and pound foolish.

Spend the extra coin upfront to get some good stuff: Lowe bags, Bogen/RRS tripods, Canon flash, brand name filters, etc.  You want solid, dependable, higher quality tools, even if it means you have to make do with fewer tools. 

[Brad Johnson]

Don't worry about the ebay kits.  Head to the source - some place like B&H or Abe's of Maine.  They carry U.S. warranted products an not the "grey market" stuff you find in many Look-At-Our-Bargain!.com places.

As for lenses...

Yes, image stabilization is worth it.  IS will effectively give you two to three extra stops in low light or fast action shooting.

You heard right on the "don't skimp" part. Buy the best glass you can afford.  The great part about lenses is you can use them on most any camera body from that particular manufacturer.  Canon is a great example.

Also, don't fall for the extreme-wide-angle-to-ultra-super-zoom lenses.  There are companies that make some rediculously wide-range zooms.  They are fine if all you want to take is snapshots.  Unfortunately the mechanics and sheer number of elements needed to have that kind of optical range makes for serious distortion and light control issues, especially when really pushed to the limits on either end.

Your kit should consist of:

Camera body (duh!)
You only have about a zillion to choose from.  In general newer and more expenses means better image resolution (more choices in post-processing, better noise control, faster shutter speeds, larger image buffers (more continuous shooting) and better autofocus control.  Go as fancy as your budget will allow, but only after you've bought glass.

Primary lens (sometimes referred to as a walkaround lens)
You walkaround lens choices are innumerable, and most every third-party makers has at least one decent choices.  I tend to stick with Canon glass because they are damn good at it. The kit lens with most Canon digitals is 18-55mm (the human eye sees at the rough equivalent of 50mm). I'd suggest stepping up to a quality piece that would extend your zoom to around 70 or 80mm.  That would cover the majority of your everyday wide-angle and modest zoom needs, making it fine for carry-all-day use (thus the term "walkaround" lens!).  Plan on spending a minimum of $450-$500 for a good one.

Zoom
Don't skimp here, especially if you're going for long range action.  Also plan on being shocked at the prices.  There are some spectacular zooms out there in the 70-200mm range. Some even go to 300mm, but be very careful.  Again, the larger the zoom range, the more internal doodads it takes to make it happen.  More stuff inside the lens means either lower performance or higher price.  Also understand that, like a good rifle scope, there's no substitute for quality optics.  The better the optical performance and overall build quality, the higher the price.  Plan on a minimum of $600-$800 for a truly good long-range zoom.  As was suggested above, you might want to rent a couple of different ones and see which you fill best fits your price/performance comprimise envelope.

A good camera bag.
Something sturdy and weather resistant.  It should be easy to carry and have plenty of storage.

Polarizer and haze filters.
That haze problem you had above?  Gone with the proper use of a polarizer.  Shop wisely and you can get lenses that use the same size filter.  Trying to keep up with two sets is a pain.

Lens cleaning supplies
A good lens brush and a quality lens cloth.  Nothing will make you want to cry faster than seeing a bunch of scratches on the objective of a $1000-plus lens.  Ask me how I know.

External shutter release
These come in both wired and wireless versions.  Wired is cheap.  Wireless is much handier, especially if you want shots where you are in the pic.  Choose based on your expected needs.

An external flash.
I cannot stress how important a good flash is.  An external flash should not be considered optional.  I use a Canon 580ex and can't recommend it enought.  Since the 580ex II came out, you can find some pretty screaming deals on the ex's.

A tripod
Again, as mentioned above, don't skimp on your tripod.

There's lots of other goodies and doodads you can add, but the above will get you through 99% of your shooting needs.

Brad

[zahc]

Camera body (duh!)
You only have about a zillion to choose from.  In general newer and more expenses means better image resolution (more choices in post-processing, better noise control, faster shutter speeds, larger image buffers (more continuous shooting) and better autofocus control.  Go as fancy as your budget will allow, but only after you've bought glass.

If you buy FX glass, you can also use it with that brand's film bodies. Any film body is as good as any other, or as good as the film you put in it. Good to know considering you can buy top-of-the-line AF 35mm bodies for pennies on the dollar. Even if you're not interested in shooting film a lot, a $40 backup body might come in handy.

[mtnbkr]

I don't know about other brands, but Nikon is moving towards a system that precludes the use of older FX lenses on newer DX bodies.  The older lenses won't meter or focus.  That was why I dumped my entire film-based Nikon gear when I went to digital.  The cost of getting an FX capable body was more than the cost to get the D40 and a selection of decent lenses for that body.

BTW, while you're shopping, don't get caught up in "this body is higher on the food chain than that body".  Look at the features carefully and analyze your usage.  I bought the Nikon D40 because it has a faster flash sync speed than all of Nikon's other bodies.  This is useful for outdoor fill flash and more important than a faster shutter or more frames per second depending on your needs.  They switched it back to a 1/250 sync for the D40x, D60, and all newer models.  Dunno why...

Chris

[zahc]

The older lenses won't meter or focus.

Bah, who needs metering or AF.


Seriously, Nikon is the Apple of the photographic world. So much of their stuff is broken by design for marketing reasons it sours me on the whole brand. If suppose if you always buy the latest and greatest thing from them, and don't MIND being milked, they are probably amazing.

[mtnbkr]

Bah, who needs metering or AF.

If I'm going to go that route, I might as well get a vintage Leica III.  I didn't buy an AF camera and later a digital to do everything myself.

Seriously, Nikon is the Apple of the photographic world. So much of their stuff is broken by design for marketing reasons it sours me on the whole brand. If suppose if you always buy the latest and greatest thing from them, and don't MIND being milked, they are probably amazing.

They're not quite that bad yet, but they're getting there.  When I bought my N80 in 2004, I went with Nikon because I expected to be able to use those lenses on any Nikon I bought going forward (at that time, you could use any nikon lens any camera).  Unfortunately, they went to DX for the digital SLRs and then introduced the new line of DX lenses and bodies that aren't compatible with the older stuff.  I would have dumped Nikon, but the D40 had a feature I couldn't find elsewhere.  Their flash system is fantastic as well.  That said, I won't be building up a big system.  There's no point given the risk they'll change standards again.

Chris

[dogmush]

Spend the extra coin upfront to get some good stuff: Lowe bags, Bogen/RRS tripods, Canon flash, brand name filters, etc.  You want solid, dependable, higher quality tools, even if it means you have to make do with fewer tools.

I'm tracking on this, and I figured most of those extra's on the Ebay kits were junk, but follow my reasoning here.  My budget started at about $800, but it became pretty quickly obvious that wouldn't do what I needed.  The $1370 of that Ebay kit is really as far as I can go.  That's all I can spend.  To get the body, those 3 Canon lenses and a Lowe pack at B&H is $1350.  That's my budget.  All of it. So the question then becomes is that Ebay stuff so bad as to be worse then nothing?  It might be, IDK, but if that's your advice (skip the cheap filters, tripods, etc) then I just don't get that stuff. I thought even a kinda crappy tripod is beter then balancing it on a rock, No?

If on the other hand, that Canon IS USM lens is not worth $529, and, for example, the Tamron 70-300 telephoto is just as good for $170, then I can transfer that budget to tripods and filters and such.  From those that use these lenses, is the Canon lens worth the extra coin?  Or rather is that (IS lens) the best use of my streched thin budget?

I figured that with the crop factor and a 300mm zoom, I effectivlly get about 480mm focal length right?  And the wide angle I'm looking at is an EF-S (made for the smaller sensor) so I actuall get the 18mm wide.  couple that with a full frame 50mm prime (80mm effective) and I'm pretty covered. 

Or should I ditch the zooms and go with more prime lenses.

HTG's advice seems to blow budget too.

28mm/1.8 Prime Lens $500
50mm/1.4 Prime lens $400
Body $530
That takes me over budget with no accesories or telephoto at all.  I realize that those are nicer lenses, but at some point money comes into play or else I'd just go straight to the L series.

So hit up B&H and go without accessories, Hit up E-bay and have crappy accessories, drop quality on one of the lenses to buy accessories, or dump one of the lenses I have in mind to buy accessories? I'm not a huge fan of the last one, as my reading has lead me to believe that an 18-55, an 80, and a 112-480 is a pretty versitile range of lenses.  But I'm open to advice (really)

Zahc, I've read your posts about film soul, and you might be right, but I have zero interest in using film.

[Brad Johnson]

If on the other hand, that Canon IS USM lens is not worth $529, and, for example, the Tamron 70-300 telephoto is just as good for $170, then I can transfer that budget to tripods and filters and such.

Not only no but Hell No!  There's a reason why it is so much cheaper.  Plastic elements, less robust construction, lesser and fewer optics coatings, etc.  I'll repeat what's been said by several in this thread...

Do!
Not!
Skimp!
On!
Optics!

Go with an older camera body if your budget is whimpering.  You can pick up a gen III or IV D-Reb on evilbay or Craigslist for half what you'll pay for the newest stuff.  You can always work your way up.

Brad

[dogmush]

Brad that's kinda what I thought.  I'll check on some used/cheaper bodies.  Let me refine my questions a little more then.

Are these lenses good:
EF 50mm f/1.8
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM


And are inexpensive things like filters, tripods and flashes SOOOO bad that I would be better off doing without them?

[Harold Tuttle]

A buddy took an award winning photo with a point & shoot...

you can argue the finer points of what equipment you need/want for eons

get a rebel with the kit lens and start making pictars!
 
sure, I need the 2.8, 70-200 IS L, but I didn't understand that until i tried the 70-300 5.6

shot with an XT rebel & the f4 70-200 L with the 2X

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx

[mtnbkr]

you can argue the finer points of what equipment you need/want for eons

Yup.  I took some of my favorite/best pictures with a point and shoot.  The key is knowing how the camera works and using it to your advantage.


Chris

[Gewehr98]

Ditto.

I've captured some breathtaking images with a lowly Canon PowerShot A10, which is a mere 1.3 megapixels. 

[Gowen]

This is a pic that my wife took for her Etsy store.  The Camera is a Olympus C700.  The zoom is incredible and this is an old camera.  She uses it for close up pics, but it takes distance just a good.  She know how to work this camera, that is the key.

[Brad Johnson]

Are these lenses good:
EF 50mm f/1.8
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

The lenses will probably be fine for general use.

However...

As much as I like primes, and I REALLY like primes, for general service I think I'd eschew the first two lenses for something like this...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/351548-GREY/Canon_9517A002BA_EF_S_17_85mm_f_4_5_6_IS.html#specifications

17-85mm, IS, and a zoom range that should take care of 99% of your walkaround shots without having to change lenses.  New it would be about $100 more than the combined two lenses above and give you both better optics and a slightly wider zoom range.  You could probably find a lightly used piece for under four bills. 

Also, the larger zoom you linked is an EF series, not an EF-S.  This is a holdover from film bodies and will work with any Canon EF series body, including the EF-S series digital mounts.  Just understand the 1.6x crop factor will make it function like a 112-480mm.  It also doesn't share filter size but a thread adapter will cure that and allow for a single set of filters.

And are inexpensive things like filters, tripods and flashes SOOOO bad that I would be better off doing without them?

Not necessarily. 

Any tripod is better than no tripod at all.  But anything approaching decent will be a minimum of $70-100. For high magnification shots, especially with relatively slow lenses and camera bodies that might be a bit noisy at high ISO's, you WILL want a tripod.

Filters?  They're optics.  See advice on optics above. At the very least get a Haze/UV filter for each lens.  Put it on and leave it.  It's cheap insurance against banging up the end of your lens. Swap the polarizer when needed.

As for the flash... do you need one now?  No.  They just make life a lot easier at times, espcially on candids or extremely wide zooms where the built-in flash may not go wide enough (vignetting).  When you DO get a flash, bite the bullet and get a good one.  With a little patience you could probably find an almost-new 580ex (not the EX MkII) for under $200.

Brad

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So the question then becomes is that Ebay stuff so bad as to be worse then nothing?

Worse than nothing?  Yeah, probably.  Learn the lesson of your disappointing P&S photographs.  That's the sort of result you can expect when your equipment is mediocre.  Spend $1000+ on mediocre stuff and you'll still get crummy results.

If your budget is tight, think quality over quantity.  You'll get better results with one or two great tools than you would with a whole pile of junk.  Truly, even if all you had was a body, a single good lens, and a good tripod, you'd still be able to take fantastic pictures.

A body, a 50/1.8, and a good tripod fits easily under you $800 budget, and they'll make better photos than those $1400 ebay kits.  Maybe rent a big stonkin' telephoto for the trip.  Anything else would be considered luxury, nice to have but not all that important.

[Brad Johnson]

Truly, even if all you had was a body, a single good lens, and a good tripod, you'd still be able to take fantastic pictures.

Wurd.

You can always buy quality stuff you don't have.  It's hard to un-buy crappy stuff you already own.

Brad

[Tim L]

I'll second the KEH recommendation, good prices on some clean used equipment and they treat you right.

Tim

[sanglant]

just some links

raw software i like it but check the forum there having some problems right now

a photo forum i belong to, it's pentax

[zahc]

Any tripod is better than no tripod at all.  But anything approaching decent will be a minimum of $70-100.

I agree on the second point, but the first only applies part of the time. I honestly think people are addicted to tripods and use them because they think they have to. I use a tripod when the camera is to heavy or impossible to hand-hold. With these little digital cameras, putting them on a tripod is almost comical. I understand if you are using a long lens or it's dark, but I see people taking pictures of stuff in the middle of the day with a normal lens, and a tripod. I think they think they are supposed to use one because it seems professional or something. Tripods are a necessary evil, not some great feature.

[mtnbkr]

Regarding flashes, I would get one from the brand that makes your body.  That way, you get maximum integration between the two.  These days, there is a lot of communication between the flash and body.  You can do some neat things if both are compatible.  I consider a good flash more important than tripods or filters.  The built-in flash in most (all) cameras are junk and are only good for causing redeye.  A good flash with bounce will enhance your photos (off-camera flash is even better, but harder for the amateur to implement).

Regarding tripods, I don't think they're as necessary with digital SLRs as they are with film because you can change ISO to allow handheld shots in situations that would require a tripod if shooting low ISO film.  I would put a tripod low on your list for the time being.  When you do get around to buying one, get a good one.  Going used in the tripod market is the best way.  Tripods are pretty durable and hard to wear out.  Good ones have replaceable parts.  Many people sell theirs after upgrading to a better/lighter one or realizing they don't need it as often as they thought.  Bogen/Manfrotto is probably the best deal on the market.

Regarding filters, I'm not a fan.  They are just additional glass surfaces that can affect your image.  If you get good ones, they issue is minor, but I prefer to avoid them unless I'm doing something specific that requires a special filter (polarizer, graduated ND, etc).

Chris

[Brad Johnson]

I understand if you are using a long lens or it's dark, but I see people taking pictures of stuff in the middle of the day with a normal lens, and a tripod. I think they think they are supposed to use one because it seems professional or something.

Just off the top of my head...

Long exposures
Self-portraits
Group pics or delayed shutter shots (shots including yourself)
Panoramas
People with arm or shoulder problems
Long-duration (i.e. several hour) photography studies where you don't want to hold it the whole time
A little extra help for those with chronic 'camera shake syndrome'

There are plenty of everyday uses for a tripod.  Just because you don't want, need, or know how to use one is no one's business but your own.

Brad