Suggestions For Buying A new DSLR

[Kitcito]

I need some help in looking for a new DSLR. But first a little about me and my past. I started with a Pentax (honeywell) Spotmatic that I bought back in high school in 79. It was a basic camera but I had the best results from that camera. I next bought a Nikon FE2 SLR and had that for quite some time. Now I only have an Olympus point and shoot 12 megapixel that really takes good pictures.

 

DW and I are going to Alaska next summer on a cruisetour and want to get a DSLR. I don't think I want a beginners camera but at the same time I'm quite sure I'm out of the loop as to what to look for and where to start. So if anyone can help or point me in the right direction this would be great.

 

As for brand, I'm partial to Nikon but I'm open to any suggestions. Thanks in advance for your help. If anyone wants to contact me via Email feel free.

 

Kitcito:D

ksfalconberry@yahoo.com

[chipmaster]

Canikon is your safe be, IE Canon or Nikon. As a deference to those that shoot the other brands almost all DSLRs released in the past year from any manufacture are spectacular cameras and will yield huge performance improvements over any P&S where you need low light, flash, or fast focus or fast shot to shot performance. The differences between the entry or even among the manufactures for entry, prosumer or pro is small.

 

What sets Canon and Nikon apart is that its their bread and butter business, they offer a huge line of lenses. Between the two they have > 60% of the total market. Thus if you are looking for lense, flashes or secondary market for used lenses on CL or Ebay or even secondary manufactures for cheaper alternatives they almost always offer Nikon and Canon before Pentax, Olympus, Sony mounts, just because of the business aspect of it.

 

If you plan to invest in lenses and other accessories either now, in the future thru new and more advanced bodies,lenses or other you can be assured that you won't have to go wanting if you choose Nikon or Canon. Choose another brand and they could get bought out, close down the business or who knows what if in 5 years you decide you need a huge upgrade in body or lense or something and then have to decide do you change brands or make do with what the brand has.

 

For entry level the 3 cameras to consider IMHO are the Canon Ti1 and Ti2 and the just annouced Nikon D3100

 

If you are looking for somethign a step up the Canon7D is the best prosumer with the Nikon D300s a step behind. The Canon50D and Nikon D90 are also very good but getting long in tooth and are due up for overhall in the comming few months.

 

It can be overwhelming for a novice to try and read up and compare but here are two good sites to read up on them:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/

http://www.dpreview.com/

 

I need some help in looking for a new DSLR. But first a little about me and my past. I started with a Pentax (honeywell) Spotmatic that I bought back in high school in 79. It was a basic camera but I had the best results from that camera. I next bought a Nikon FE2 SLR and had that for quite some time. Now I only have an Olympus point and shoot 12 megapixel that really takes good pictures.

 

DW and I are going to Alaska next summer on a cruisetour and want to get a DSLR. I don't think I want a beginners camera but at the same time I'm quite sure I'm out of the loop as to what to look for and where to start. So if anyone can help or point me in the right direction this would be great.

 

As for brand, I'm partial to Nikon but I'm open to any suggestions. Thanks in advance for your help. If anyone wants to contact me via Email feel free.

 

Kitcito:D

ksfalconberry@yahoo.com

[pierces]

Her we go again.

 

Can I TiVo through the commercials? :D:D:D:D

 

DP Review is a good source of info they lean a bit toward Canikon, but are generally fair.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/

 

Their latest review is very interesting if you are looking for a compact above-entry-level DSLR.

 

One good thing is that you will have to look long and hard to find a bad camera from any of the major manufacturers.

 

 

Dave

[chipmaster]

I will dissapoint you and not debate anything about the camera.

 

Many interesting features but time will tell if Sony stays in it for the long run. They may have lost 90% of the loadings in their factory for all that I can tell, that will be costly loss for Sony semicondutor.

 

The business side of things are hugely important in the long run. Many times the best product doesn't win sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't matter at all. These days I really wonder what pitches the business unit guys make to the CEO at places like Sony, Samsung, Olympus, and Pentax.

 

Unlike a car which we buy and when it gets old we buy a new one and it matters little if it is the same brand, cameras usually come with lenses, flashes that we invest equal if not more value in and thus those decisions are hugely important if one gets serious about, also important if one looks to sell there equipment how big the buyer / seller market is. All other things being close to equal as we both agree might those be the swing factor for some ;)

 

Her we go again.

 

Can I TiVo through the commercials? :D:D:D:D

 

DP Review is a good source of info they lean a bit toward Canikon, but are generally fair.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/

 

Their latest review is very interesting if you are looking for a compact above-entry-level DSLR.

 

One good thing is that you will have to look long and hard to find a bad camera from any of the major manufacturers.

 

 

Dave

[snydermann]

I believe most modern Nikon/Canon cameras are capable of taking great pictures. For the most part you are paying for the features and/or build quality. I also feel 98% of the folks who buy a DSLR buy a camera that has way more features than they will ever use or understand.

 

Buy a camera in the price range you want to pay with the features you will actually use.

 

Buy the best lenses you can afford! It's the lenses that will make the biggest difference. For some reason many people buy a great camera, but skimp on the lenses. I believe, if budget is a concern, it should be the other way around.

[TheOldBear]

Do you have any investment in lenses, dedicated flashes or other accessories?

 

I have a minor suite of Canon EOS lenses [2 zooms, 3 primes, all 'consumer' grade] that gives _me_ a minor tilt toward Canon for a DSLR.

 

Despite that bias, I would look carefully at all the available options - not just Canon/Nikon. [And I probably will get something like the Panasonic LX5 before a new interchangeable lens camera].

 

Visit a real camera store [and buy stuff there]. See how the cameras fit your hands and eyes.

 

I will also echo the suggestion to take a look over at dpreview

[pierces]

I will dissapoint you and not debate anything about the camera.

 

Many interesting features but time will tell if Sony stays in it for the long run. They may have lost 90% of the loadings in their factory for all that I can tell, that will be costly loss for Sony semicondutor.

 

The business side of things are hugely important in the long run. Many times the best product doesn't win sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't matter at all. These days I really wonder what pitches the business unit guys make to the CEO at places like Sony, Samsung, Olympus, and Pentax.

 

Unlike a car which we buy and when it gets old we buy a new one and it matters little if it is the same brand, cameras usually come with lenses, flashes that we invest equal if not more value in and thus those decisions are hugely important if one gets serious about, also important if one looks to sell there equipment how big the buyer / seller market is. All other things being close to equal as we both agree might those be the swing factor for some ;)

 

Yeah. Sony's only been in the digital camera business since 1981... ;)

 

The majority of people who buy DSLRs will never buy more than a couple of lenses and maybe a flash if they get "serious". People these days tend more to buy what they like and have less remorse about changing brands. Look at the impact that the micro 4/3 and the Sony NEX cameras have had. The droves of people flocking to them aren't seemingly worried that there are few native lenses available or that there is a limited system built around them. Instead, they are attracted by innovations that fit their real or imagined need for high-quality imaging in a compact form. Case in point: the top 10 best selling DSLRs in Japan for July '10 made up 80% of the market for all DSLRs (and, yes, they include the mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras in DSLR sales ??) Market share for traditional DSLRs in the top ten made up 52% of all DSLR sales but the mirrorless cameras made up 27% of all sales with the two NEX camera accounting for 15%. Your point about "investing" in a system is valid, but only if photography is your moneymaker and few people fall into that category. Many people will buy a camera that takes great pictures and keep it for years without ever worrying about the vast catalogs of accessories available for it. Others will follow the cellphone model and flip their cameras once or twice a year when some celebrity waves the next shiny thing around on TV.

 

I've owned my Sony A700 for three years now and have a couple or three $K worth of lenses and such. It has served me very well and I am pleased with its performance. If Canon had had better controls or Nikon had fit my hands better, I would be using one of those. I wasn't worried that over 70% of Canon's business is from non-camera related endeavors or that Nikon sold less than half as many digital still cameras than Sony. I liked the way the camera's controls worked, how the balance felt and I liked the look and feel of the images.

 

If the OP leans towards Nikon and their offerings fit the bill, I say go for it. If a weatherproof Pentax K7 is better suited, yahoo. If a Leica M9 and a 50mm f/.95 Noctilux is perfect for you and the price doesn't make you taste vomit at the back of your throat, by all means, buy it! In these days of leaps and bounds in the tech involved in photography, putting on a two-brand set of blinders before going shopping is doing one's self a disservice.

 

In case anyone is wondering about my lack of brevity, hotel rooms can be very, very boring!

 

*sigh*

 

BTW chipmaster, the fact that I debate you as much as I do on this subject stems from my respect for your point of view and how well you articulate it.

 

Happy shopping!

 

Dave

[Kitcito]

Everyone thank you for your advice. I do not have any lens anymore only the small point and shoot my wife bought me. I am open to all brands but the only experience is the two listed originally, Pentax and Nikon. My next question is regarding lens and other attachments to start off with. What would you say is a good "starter system"? I like landscape, animal, flower photography best. How many lens should I start out with? What focal lengths and zoom capabilities should I focus on? As you can see I don't mind spending the money but I would rather buy the best quality that I will need and put the money mostly in what makes the best bang for the buck. Buying a better than average lens would be superior to a DSLR body that is name driven. I guess I'm trying to say is that I'm not one to buy the next best gadget (Cell Phone) as an example just because a newer one is now being offered. Any suggestions on what lens, and attachments would be best to start off with is what I'm looking for also. Thanks for everyones post, they have given me a lot of info to start researching.

 

Kitcito

[pierces]

What would you say is a good "starter system"? I like landscape, animal, flower photography best. How many lens should I start out with? What focal lengths and zoom capabilities should I focus on?

 

Most entry- to mid- range camera bodies are sold with a "kit" lens in the 18-55mm range and most are offered with a 75-300mm general telephoto add-on lens for perhaps $100 more. The range of subjects you mentioned would require a range from wide (landscapes) to telephoto (animals) with either capable of close focusing (flowers). My suggestion would be to pick the body that suits you best within your budget and buy the two-lens kit. Kit lenses are never going to be as good as their pro-level counterparts, but they are much better than people give them credit for. As you learn the camera and shoot more, you will get an idea of what you shoot most often and which lens you use the most. Once that has been established, go out and buy a better quality lens in the range you favor. If you later find that you need something wider or longer, shop in those ranges for the best you can afford. Another path would be to buy the body only and a $500-$600 18-250 super zoom. These make great general purpose lenses and many people never buy another lens after putting one on (good image quality and no lens changes). Again, if you find you need longer, wider, closer or are tempted by the zero-defect no-excuses quality of a pro-level lens in a certain range, move up one lens at a time. Either way, you have a moderate investment in the original lens selection and won't end up with an unused $1200 lens at the bottom of your bag or on eBay.

 

Good luck! The first step is the tough one. After that there's a lot of fun to be had exploring digital photography. It has really brought me back to photography in a big way and I'm having a great time with it!

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

[snydermann]

You can hardly go wrong buying good lenses as they generally hold their value. Digital cameras depreciate quickly, but lenses do not. I’ve purchased Nikon lenses and sold those years later for close to what I paid.

 

For a beginner who can spend some money I’d recommend zoom lenses with Vibration Reduction. If I could only have one lens, it would be my Nikon 18-200mm VR zoom. I think it cost around $700.00.

 

My favorite go-to lenses are the super-wide-angle zooms, 18mm (or less) to 35mm (or more). They work great for expansive scenery or inside cruise ships. They fit a lot of image into a small space. They are also relatively compact. The Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D runs $600.00-ish.

 

I always take along a 50mm prime lens. They are known for taking some of the sharpest photos; they are very compact and shoot well in low light situations. A great one can be had for a few hundred dollars.

 

A DSLR with a built-in pop-up flash is very handy, even if not powerful. An add-on flash is a good investment, but it doesn’t have to be the most expensive model available. I believe flash features are more underused by beginners than even camera features. The Nikon SB-400 flash is like a hundred bucks and isn’t as clunky as most add-on flash units so it works well for travel.

[pierces]

I’d recommend zoom lenses with Vibration Reduction.

 

Good point!

 

Since I shoot Sony, I always forget to mention that!

 

VR, IS, Steady Shot, OIS...whatever it's called, it's an amazing feature.

 

 

Dave

[zackiedawg]

Ditto on advice above...you won't go wrong with a DSLR today from any brand (in my opinion and contrary to the opinions of some others here!), so hunt down the one that feels the best in your hands, most comfortable to carry and shoot with, and fits your price. Lens-wise, I'd tend to recommend the idea of buying the body and one good 'superzoom' type lens like the afformentioned 18-200, 18-250, etc - this will be a slightly pricier option than the 2-kit-lens packages, but I find will satisfy most people more as these lenses often have slightly better optical quality than the kit lenses with a very convenient focal range that is perfect for travel without having to change lenses. As you start to get a handle on what types of photography you most often shoot, or want to shoot, you can start looking to specific lenses in that focal range or zoom range that have better optical quality. And don't be afraid to buy used, or third-party brands (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina are big manufacturers and actually make some of the branded lenses for some camera companies, so don't be afraid of them).

 

Feature-wise, stabilization is excellent - almost a must-have. If going with Canon or Nikon, look for lenses that offer this option...they may cost a bit more than the non-stabilized version, but especially with longer lenses it can be invaluable. If going with Sony, Pentax, or Nikon, no worries, as their cameras all have stabilization built into the camera body so all lenses will receive the benefit of stabilization. Other features to consider when shopping around, to determine if they are things you want or need: video capabilities, different types of live view functionality, tiltable or movable LCD screens, larger optical viewfinders, battery capacities and indicators...just to name a few. All of these things can vary between different models and brands, so read up and make sure if there's something you consider a 'must have' that the camera you are looking at has it.

 

Most important should be feel - grip designs vary wildly, as do weights and sizes, button layouts, and build materials. If you're a very accomodating person, I suppose you could get by OK with any of them, but most likely you'll find this one too light or too heavy, grip too large or too small, body too thick or too thin, too much plastic or too much metal, too many buttons or not enough buttons, and so on. Handling the various cameras can help determine which ones to eliminate if they really don't fit you comfortably at all...then shop amongst those that feel best and compare features and prices from there.

 

And always feel free to come back around here and ask, if you have any specific questions.

[chipmaster]

I will take an arrow for this but hey it won't surpise those that debate this with me, start the TIVO :D

 

"Most important should be feel - grip designs vary wildly, as do weights and sizes, button layouts, and build materials. If you're a very accomodating person, I suppose you could get by OK with any of them, but most likely you'll find this one too light or too heavy, grip too large or too small, body too thick or too thin, too much plastic or too much metal, too many buttons or not enough buttons, and so on. Handling the various cameras can help determine which ones to eliminate if they really don't fit you comfortably at all...then shop amongst those that feel best and compare features and prices from there."

 

I was one that came to love the feel and way menus of one brand felt after going thru a consumer and prosumer body with them. I actaully sold all my lenses and 2 bodies and was awaiting the full-frame release of another brand. I played with its gen1 version heavily and my friends same brand high end crop model. It never felt right, but you know what, I could have gotten used to it. I have shot that other brands highest end newest sport shooter, and both their crop camera. It took maybe 5' to figure out the settings over just doing it on my brand. All brands really have similar options its only the names that are different. In the end I went to a full-frame of the original brand and upgraded a few lenses. I now have between that and its entry level two bodies that between weight and ergo might as well be two different brands. The menus are similar but also different enough I always need to remind and relearn myself of things when I swapped between my two bodies. But in the end what I feel really good about is the lense selection that I have and want and bodies that I will want 10 years from now they will still be in business. The biggest different between body sight/weight and build come between the levels; pro, prosumer, consumer, entry etc. Menu, handling etc. are different and one of the ways each brand tries to differentiate iteslf. I will wager that no brand don't go out of their way to make a button or dial so unintuative to the majority Afterall they all hire specialist to make sure they aren't doing really stupid things but try to improve over their competitors or their current models year over year, but the also try to keep tradition as well.

 

As Pierces mentioned most or the majority of the people probably will buy a DSLR and mabe a superzoom and another lense or two, maybe 1500-3000 total budget at the most. But... if you are one where the bug bites you and you want the latest 12800 ISO with fastest AFS to shoot sports or BIF in lowlight and it grows to be a hobby you spend 10grand or more you really want to start out investing the first 3 thousand only to find you need to start over just because the first brand "felt" right or the button felt better before you really had a strong habit for one thing or another? Or now you need to compromise or wait and wait for a lense or body that might never come?

 

The first step isn't hard at all, define your need, budget, and decide between Canon and Nikon. Beyond you have some really out of the ordinary hand size or other physical problem or other unique and exterme need it would be shocking that one of the models Canikon offer don't meet your need. Its only the other brand shooters that come and have to make excuses or have to debate defending their brand :D

 

Don't get me wrong, nobody is a lesser skilled our is their photography limited or less good because they shoot brand x then brand y. Its like arguing camry, accord, intrigue, grandprix. The difference here is you might add things that cost 10x your car and that only fit that brand after that car is long gone and the followon might well not exist

[pierces]

If going with Sony, Pentax, or Nikon, no worries, as their cameras all have stabilization built into the camera body...

 

Typo I assume?

 

Nikon does not have in-body stabilization.

 

Dave

[snydermann]

Typo I assume?

 

Nikon does not have in-body stabilization.

 

Dave

 

LOL, I didn't think so either, but haven't kept up on the latest and greatest bodies. Damn, here I was all excited. . . . lol.

[zackiedawg]

Yeah, that was meant to be Olympus...don't know how that got in there!

 

And just to point out that some folks can be a bit more picky than Chipmaster - I couldn't shoot with any Canon camera under the pro models, as my hand positively cramps trying to hold the camera and carry the camera the way I've done for decades, especially with heavier lenses - camera body is too thin, and grip far too small with not enough finger depth for my hands. It makes it no less of a great camera and may be a great fit for someone else, but it would make photography significantly less enjoyable for me, because I'd be uncomfortable anytime I'm holding the camera. I'll bet someone with smaller hands might say the same of a Sony Alpha 500-900 model or the full-frame Nikon & Canon models, for example, which have very large, heavy, thick bodies with substantial deep grips. It's why I recommend considering the design and comfort no matter what you buy. Even if you're not aspiring to become a professional photographer with a $10K a year habit of lenses!

[zackiedawg]

IIts only the other brand shooters that come and have to make excuses or have to debate defending their brand

 

BTW - no need to defend any brand for me - I bought my current camera because it was the only camera on the planet earth that could do what it does and satisfy my needs and wants, from any brand. If the camera that could deliver those needs to me had a Fisher Price badge on the front, that's the one I'd be buying - because I believe in getting the best device to cover each and every one of your own personal needs, rather than buying a particular brand because everyone else does, and skipping out on features you wanted. No compromises for me, and no need to tear down other camera brands or try to convert everyone to buy my brand - my maxim remains unchanged - buy what works best for you, brand-be-darned.

 

You'll note nowhere in my post did I recommend a brand of camera I'm currently using, nor steer anyone away from another brand...I'm a regular Switzerland! ;) And like Dave, I enjoy the debates on the topic with you, as we are all knowledgeable photographers with an opinion and respect for one another - hopefully those whose threads we tread upon can forgive us the segue!

[Kitcito]

This has been quite intersting reading everyones post. I have one question that a few of you have mentioned. What is a "full-frame Nikon & Canon"? What does a "Prosumer" verses a "Consumer" mean? I'm assuming Prosumer is better than entry level but not quite as good as Pro line.

 

I like the point brought out that it's better to start with a high quality small system than the opposite. I'm pretty sure that whatever camera I buy I will start out with the best meaning pro or near pro camera that I can afford and then start building up my system from there as budget allows. All of your suggestions and comments have really been helpful in starting this process and will be back to let you know what the final outcome is when I purchase something. Thanks to everyone and I will be following this thread in case someone post after today.

 

Kitcito

[pierces]

This has been quite intersting reading everyones post. I have one question that a few of you have mentioned. What is a "full-frame Nikon & Canon"? What does a "Prosumer" verses a "Consumer" mean? I'm assuming Prosumer is better than entry level but not quite as good as Pro line.

 

 

Full-frame refers to the size of the sensor. A typical DSLR has a an APS-C format sensor roughly equivalent in size to the APS film frame (roughly 24mm x 16mm). Full-frame cameras have sensors that are the same size as a 35mm film camera (36mm x 24mm). The advantage of full-frame (besides a much larger area with larger, more efficient photosites for a given number of pixels) is that lenses designed for 35mm cameras will give the same field of view as they do on a film 35mm. APS-C cameras introduce a 1.5x "crop factor" (1.6x for Canon due to a slightly smaller sensor) because of the smaller area making a 50mm "standard" lens appear as a 75mm short telephoto. This crop factor is good for the long end since a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens behaves like a 105-300mm f/2.8 but you pay for it at the short end where a 24mm wide angle gets stretched to a 36mm equivalent field of view. The Four Thirds and Micro-Four Thirds cameras have even smaller sensors (17mm x 13mm) that introduce a 2x crop factor.

 

Canon, Nikon, Sony and Leica are the only brands currently offering full-frame bodies. The larger sensor comes at a premium with prices for body only starting at $2000 (Sony A850) and going up to $8500 (Leica M9).

 

"Consumer" refers to the entry - to mid entry-level of DSLRs (and now DSLTs with Sony's new fixed mirror entries) that range from $500 to about $1000. These generally have more spartan interfaces, predominantly plastic bodies (usually well-built over metal alloy frames, just not as rugged as their higher priced cousins), dimmer penta-mirror viewfinders (instead of an all-glass pentaprism) and slower burst rates due to cost savings in the processors and buffers. "Prosumer" refers to the roughly $1000-$2500 range where you see rugged magnesium alloy body shells, more dedicated function buttons, access to more advanced settings, more robust processing and better viewfinders.

 

 

Dave

[chipmaster]

This is a good read on some elements of full frame versus cropped, it applies equally when considering any other brand.

http://ezstrobesphoto.blogspot.com/2009/01/nikon-d300-vs-d700.html

 

I think it also tries to touch on something many forget beyond the equavalent focal length or FOV but the element of DOF which becomes a key optical phenomena that you may want to use to your advantage for any number of reasons when you start considering buying fast 2.8 or faster lenses. Fullframe really allows you a shallow DOF for any given focal length but not for free of course.

 

IMHO the fullframe really is about your need to shoot super wide as very good quaility crop super wides down to ~ 18mm equavalent FOV on fX are now avaiable for crop cameras. The other huge advantage of fullframe is the pixel density is lower allowing it to capure more light so if you shoot low light or need the best high ISO performance they are often fullframe cameras but the advantage they offer is getting increasingly small given their huge premium in price and need for larger and more expensive glass.

 

Lastly if you shoot on the telephoto side IE beyond 200mm or so on full-frame the logistics and cost of supertelephotos becomes literally a "big" issue as a 200 2.8 as expensive as they are is equal to 300mm on cropp while a 300 2.8 is well big and expensive :eek: Almost so much that this winter I'm considering getting a crop sensor versus buying a 300 2.8 as my next addition.

 

 

This has been quite intersting reading everyones post. I have one question that a few of you have mentioned. What is a "full-frame Nikon & Canon"? What does a "Prosumer" verses a "Consumer" mean? I'm assuming Prosumer is better than entry level but not quite as good as Pro line.

 

I like the point brought out that it's better to start with a high quality small system than the opposite. I'm pretty sure that whatever camera I buy I will start out with the best meaning pro or near pro camera that I can afford and then start building up my system from there as budget allows. All of your suggestions and comments have really been helpful in starting this process and will be back to let you know what the final outcome is when I purchase something. Thanks to everyone and I will be following this thread in case someone post after today.

 

Kitcito

[JWJs]

Hi Kitcito. Over the years, I've gone through 3 point and shoot digital cameras.

Then...two years ago I decided to jump up to a DSLR and bought a Nikon D60. Then...the Nikon D90 came out and I finally bought it a few months ago. I'm very, very happy with the D90 and the kit lens it came with.

I asked for advice on this forum at the time I was looking for my first DSLR. The point that stood out the most for me was finding a camera that felt comfortable in my hands...and I did.

Both the D60 and the D90 are comfortable in my hands. The D90 has a lot of features that compare with the D300. Like I said....I'm very happy with the D90. However....I would really like to have a D300. :) And....I always have lens envy. Would love to have at least one pro lens for my D90....time will tell if I part with the big bucks to get one.

Good luck with finding the right camera for you.:) It's worth all the time, effort and money.