8/5 I'm thinking of getting a serious SLR camera. Costco is selling
a Canon SLR for $1299. Is that a decent SLR at a decent price?
\_ If you don't know, you shouldn't be buying a $1300 camera. -tom
\_ I agree with tom. What do you need it for? If you don't
know, it's obviously not _worth_ it. If you do know, only you
can make that decision. If you're wondering about price
comparison alone, go check out on-line sites, like buydig,
bhphotovideo, onecall, amazon, etc. And it's a huge can of
worms talking about DSLR. Why Canon? Did you check out
Nikon, Pentax, etc.? Again, it comes down to what you want
out of it. --owner of 350D and 5D.
\_ I didn't know what I needed my SLR for when I bought my
350D and it's one of the best purchases I ever made. If
you can afford it, it's a great opportunity to learn about
photography -- I found a shitload of stuff I had no clue
about that I could just teach myself on the SLR. Sites
like http://dpreview.com have good explanations of all the
features you're likely to see; a colleague recommended
that for starters I look at the D70 and 350D, which are
very similar cameras at a beginner's skill level. I'd
just recommend getting a better lens than what you're
likely to get in a kit. -John
\- overall i have some ambivalence about digital [in part
because i am not real good with the software] but two
unambiguous wins are:
--you can get at least something in low keep-rate
situations where you probably wouldnt have shot at
all if film+dev was coming out of your pocket [like
shooting on a boat in 10ft seas ... i kept maybe
10/150px.
--speaking more to your point: you get immediate feedback
on your pix so it is easier to casually learn about
DoF, motion blurr etc. The EXIF info means you dont
have to record the f-stop info in a shooting notebook,
and since so film/developing costs, you might as well
bracket. So you can see what the difference is, if any,
shooting an panorama with infinity focus at 1/500th
or 1/4000 sec.
--re: kit lens: when i bought my Nikon D70, eventhough
i have better lenses in the same range,
i still got the kit lens because: the marginal
effective price was pretty low, and there are times
and places i dont want to take the expensive glass ...
when i fell off a camel, you can bet i was happy it
was with the kit lens, and not the lens with the 77mm
front element. of course this may not apply in some
cases depending on other equipment, finances, type
of photography etc
\_ I dragged my 17-85 all over South America through
some pretty shitty places, and I was glad I didn't
have the 18-55. I read a good opinion once that
no amateur photographer should need more than 3
lenses, and I agree -- your camera is there to be
used, if you take reasonable care it'll be fine,
but sometimes random shit just happens. As for
falling off camels, get a good camera bag or learn
your priorities (camera > personal injury) -John
\_ Let's see some pictures you have taken and then
we'll decide whether to listen to you.
\- what do you think those three lenses should be?
i certainly an am amateur, and i think you want
to be able to shoot from 24mm-300mm [and going a
little wider than 24 is nice for "big landscapes"]
i'd compose this range from 3 zooms, although
you can do two. however, a decent protrait lens
is reasonable to have. 1:1 macro can be nice,
[http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Maroc2006/Hib61.jpg]
although something like the nikon 105 1:1 can
serve as both. anyway, photography is one of those
areas where the range of amateurs is so wide,
i dont think it's a meaningful group to generalize
about. i think the issue is more about what
conditions you shoot under [big landscapes,
indoor events, posed portraits, sports, "small
nature" etc].
BTW, there is also a element of adaptation ...
once you shoot slides, you cant go back to even
nice color prints. Once you've shot at 17-18mm,
24mm doesnt see enough, once you've used a
medium-high quality zoom, it's hard to go back
to the 5.6@300mm zooms [i havent used the
legendary 2.8 thrus].
\_ As implied in multiple posts, you should first consider how it
will be used. dSLRs have gotten so popular these days because
many people think they will take better pictures than the
compact snapshooters because they are more expensive. But
many of these people will also stick with just the kit lens for
rest of the camera's life. Keep in mind that most snapshooters
will do extra processing to make the photo "look better" for
casual shooters like increasing saturation levels and such that
serious dSLRs won't do as much of. For example, I can't remember
if it was the XTi does it or not, but at least for XT, the
default setting when shooting in JPEG uses higher saturation than
[123]0D series. And if you do decide to go with dSLRs, the XTi
may be a better way to go than the 30D as mentioned below. Two
advantages I really like about the [123]0D series over dRebel
series are the second control wheel on the back and the build
quality/feel. (The feel of the shutter between the dRebel and
X0D series alone makes me lust for the X0D, but I opted for the
X0D series alone makes me lust for the X0D, but I optedor the
XTi until I can afford a 5D series.) The second wheel is not as
useful unless you are constantly shootin in full manual mode,
and the build quality alone probably won't justify the cost
difference. But if you can afford the extra cost and go with
a 5D, the price difference is probably justifiable.
\_ That sounds expensive to me. You should be able to get a
Rebel XTi for around $700 w/ the 18-55 EF-S lens.
\_ Canon EOS 5D 12.8MP Camera Body Only & 2 2GB Card: $2649.99
Canon 30D 8.2MP 18-55mm EF-S Lens 2 2GB Card: $1249.99
Canon XTi 10.1MP 18-55mm 1 2GB Card: $799.99
These are Costco prices. Is it worth it?
\_ If you can't tell the difference, no. You should be going
to an actual camera store where you can talk with someone
about what you're trying to do with your photography. -tom
\_ Well, they are reasonable prices, but unless you are
a google millionaire w/ money to burn, I would suggest
that at least you research these cameras on http://photo.net
and http://dpreview.com to figure out which one best suits
your needs. If you are a google millionaire w/ money
to burn, why the heck are you looking at something
w/ so few MP? You really need a Hasselblad H3D, a Canon
1Ds Mark III or a Sigma SD14.
\_ And obviously, you're just an average consumer,
too, stuck on MegaPixel marketing talk. Why do
you think 30D costs more than 400D (XTi) even
though it has lower MP? And 5D has more MP (12.8)
than 1D Mk.III (10.1), too, unless you're talking about
the unreleased model. And I'm not even going to talk
about Sigma's Foveon sensor pixel count quirks.
\_ I totally argree that I am an average consumer,
which is why I own a 400D (XTi). I admit that
one of the big reasons I bought the XTi was the
10 MP sensor. So what? I researched different
dSLRs and picked the one that fit my budget
and produced reasonable images w/ very little
manual futzing.
My point was simply that OP ought to do some
research before buying unless he has money to
burn, in which case why settle, just buy the
best.
manual futzing. Also, the added weight of the
30D was a big minus for me.
But, in any case my point was simply that OP
ought to do some research before buying b/c
it is hard to recommend a camera based on
price alone.
Re 30D unless you are a fairly accomplished photographer
it is the same camera as the older XT (350D) and you will
be better served by the cheaper XTi (400D) w/ some decent
lenses. Also the 30D may soon be replaced by the 40D, so
you should expect a price drop on it as well.
\- it's not just a matter of money. if you arent committed
to taking pictures, it is an asspain to carry 5-10lbs
of photogear around. remember the pro cameras dont have
built in (fill) flash etc. [1Ds = +2.5lbs body alone].
40D is around the corner. you can find the (likely) specs
on the weeb.
\_ Yeah, I totally agree w/ the weight issue. The
extra weight of the 30D over the XTi is a big
issue if you are just a causal photographer.
\_ It all boil down to the weight. Before you jump into the world of
dSLR, you need to think how much you are willing to carry all the
time. Once you've decided that you are willing to carry the weight,
then, my suggestion is to get a 17-40mm f/4 if
you go with Canon, 17-35mm f/2.8 if you go with Nikon. Then, use
the spare money to get a camera body. Don't get me wrong,
both Pentax and Sony also make good cameras, I am just less familiar
with their product lines.
You do need to remember that dSLR doesn't necessary take good
pictures. It just offers more option to tweak with settings.
If you don't know what to tweak, then, don't expect too much from it
kngharv
\- you realize the bhphoto price on
the nikon 17-35/2.8 is $1500, or
more than x2 the Canon lens.
the Nikon 18-35/3.5+ is $450.
I think the Nikons have a 1.5 crop factor while _/
Canons have 1.6 (unless you go up to the full frame).
Nikon 18mm x1.5 = 27mm 35mm-equivalent
Nikon 18mm x1.5 = 27mm equivalent
Canon 17mm x1.6 = 27.2mm
So the Nikon 18 is actually the same (ok .2mm better)
effectively. The Canon gets a tad more long end, but
the wide angle is probably what's important here.
(I have no idea about possible quality differences.)
\- my point is the nikon 17-35 is an very expensive
lens. it's not a reasonable recommendation for
this person. the 18-35 is the lens to recommend
at most. maybe even the kit digital only.
if you are not going to shoot film or fullframe,
might not make sense to buy the expensive D lenses.
\_ Yeah, I was just making an observation. Since
this person seems to basically want an expensive
P&S, might as well get the 18-135mm/3.5+ DX.
The DX lenses are much more compact.
\- what do you guys shooting in the 10mp range do with all those
pixels? at 8mp i think i am already at the point when my
ability to crop aka "digital zoom" is limited by shutter
blurr ... in really stable shots, i can already see the
stiching on shoes and clothing. they are nice to have and
storage is cheep now, but really quantitative factors
probably should matter more for 99% of you ... 8mp + good
menu design > 10mp + bad interface. etc.
\_ Well, I bought the 400D (XTi) mostly b/c it was only
like $100 more than the 350D (XT). I really don't need
the extra MP. The only difference I've found between
the 400D and the 350D is that the 400D seems to have
less noise at ISO 400 than the 350D.
\- yeah i agree often you are getting the extra pixels
"for free", like when buying a new camera, but i think
when evaluating across models, not weighting the "+2mp"
too heavily. although i have to say occasionally when
i take a "documentary" photo, it's kinda neat to be able
to read small print etc.
\_ Same here. I got the XTi for less noise factor. In my
recent snapshooter purchase, I went with Fuji f31fd
purely because of its low noise quality. MP was one of
the last things on my mind. |
http://csua.com/feed/