Foo - I want to get a dslr

I've taken darkroom photography for 3 years in high school and haven't done much with it since.

I've only used the canon rebel from like 2002. I never got to experiment with it, just take random photos.
I don't know where to start :( this is just about as bad as looking for a laptop. lol
a lot of people tell me to get the canon d60. shooting video sounds like fun too!

I want one to .Me id go with sony Since sony been so good to me.I love photography i just wish i was beter at it

Nothing wrong with a Canikon. I have Pentax largely due to legacy lenses. But at the time I bought my entry-level dslr, neither Canon's nor Nikon's offerings could compete on low-light performance.

The pic below is not post-processed and is ISO 64k

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s65/StupidlyBrave/Concerts/BG-Oct282010/bg1.jpg

I skipped the entry level cameras and went to a used Canon 30D. I still have it and it works great. I also have a Canon 50D. I would say if you are serious get the most you can afford Canon or Nikon and then get a better lens than the kit lens. I bought the body only and then bought a Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens. Nikon has an equivalent lens that is a reasonable price.

If you don't mind an older one, I have a Canon 20d with three lenses I'm thinking about selling. It's a great, robust camera, I just never use it since I got my Fuji X10.

Nothing wrong with a Canikon. I have Pentax largely due to legacy lenses. But at the time I bought my entry-level dslr, neither Canon's nor Nikon's offerings could compete on low-light performance.

The pic below is not post-processed and is ISO 64k

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s65/StupidlyBrave/Concerts/BG-Oct282010/bg1.jpgTHats amazeing that iso and no noise.how much would that cost me?

I've been wanting to try a dSLR for a long time too. For you alphabet girl, that sounds much safer than joining the military.

I'd also suggest looking at some of the higher-end, but non-DSLR cameras. With film cameras the SLR feature was practically essential for anyone who wanted to take pictures through a range of different lenses since the single lens reflex design was the only way to have the viewfinder show exactly what you were photographing.

But the SLR design also has substantial drawbacks - it's mechanically complex (therefore expensive and may suffer more failures), the lens needs to be designed to produce an image far behind the back of the lens which eliminates some lens designs that could be sharper and faster, and the camera ends up being a little bigger and heavier than it would need to be without the SLR mirror mechanism.

With digital photography there's the LCD screen that lets you see exactly what will appear in the photograph without the need for the SLR design, so I see some significant benefits in the mid-range cameras that provide for interchangeable lenses but without the reflex design. More camera makers are coming out with models for this market that have relatively large sensor sizes, high sensitivity (useful ISO range), and a range of available lenses, incl. high quality zoom lenses that let you do most of your shooting without changing lenses.

Think seriously about whether you will carry and use a DSLR before you get one. Last year I was debating getting a nice Canon DSLR body - already had some nice prime lenses (180 2.8, 85 1.8, 24 2.0). I ended up deciding to sell the lenses and 35mm bodies on Ebay. Got great prices for the lenses (almost as much as my purchase price 8 or more years ago) and almost nothing for the 35 mm bodies of course.

My reason? I just knew I would not carry the gear. I carried it for a few years as a pro (Nikon F3 bodies, heavy ass manual focus lenses) and I know it's not easy. Today, I carry a decent long zoom P&S, and a small HD video camera (Kodak) -- there are times I wish I had more camera with me, but having a camera I'll actually carry skiing or kayaking or hiking or whatever is better than having no camera at all because it was too big/heavy/inconvenient.

It's funny, I can't comment much on still shots (that is my wifes territory). However, after upgrading her 30D to a 60D I have had a BLAST using it for my Youtube videos. They take AMAZING video.

Turn on HD and go full screen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb-Cbeh-S9U

^^The inconvenience of lugging a large body and several lenses around is the main reason I almost never use my DSLR these days. 90% of the time I'd rather take out my X10, probably 5% of the time I'll use my Canonet (also small and convenient, but film), and the rest of the time I'll use one of my other cameras.

You may have to work in order to pay for a DSLR.

^There is a bit of grain there. At that resolution, it's difficult to see. I think I paid about $700 for a two-lens kit (K-x; 18-55mm and 55-300mm). The shot above was hand-held and taken with the 55-300mm at F5.6 and a shutter speed of 1/125. All of the current entry-level dslrs from Pentax, Nikon and Canon are superior to mine.

But make no mistake about it - a faster lens will yield superior results than pushing ISO on a kit lens. But they cost much more...Most of my indoor low-light pictures lately have been with my 25year old 135mm manual focus prime. At f2.8 it's wide open and a bit soft. But if I can nail the focus, I get the shutter speed I need.

^There is a bit of grain there. At that resolution, it's difficult to see. I think I paid about $700 for a two-lens kit (K-x; 18-55mm and 55-300mm). The shot above was hand-held and taken with the 55-300mm at F5.6 and a shutter speed of 1/125. All of the current entry-level dslrs from Pentax, Nikon and Canon are superior to mine.

But make no mistake about it - a faster lens will yield superior results than pushing ISO on a kit lens. But they cost much more...Most of my indoor low-light pictures lately have been with my 25year old 135mm manual focus prime. At f2.8 it's wide open and a bit soft. But if I can nail the focus, I get the shutter speed I need.Thats a amazing shot.My sony hx97 does ok for what it is i love it but it just dont have the huge image sensor a dslr has.Plus dslr you can change lens.After seeing ya pic i want 1 even more

It all depends on what you want to get out of the hobby. I started with film and then went to the first digital point and shoots. Then on to high end mega zoom point and shoots. It wasn't until I got my DSLR and a nice lens that I was happy.

OK, here's the low down as I see it. High end point and shoot or dslr with kit lens will not get you these pics.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/Blue%20Angels%20Air%20Show%202010/IMG_9078.jpg

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/IMG_1863.jpg

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/IMG_2601.jpg


http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/DPP07D70517073923.jpg

When I was deciding what to do 5 or so years ago, I decided to go with a higher end point and shoot with a 18X zoom (panasonic lumix something or other) because it was cheaper than a dSLR and I wouldn't need to carry lenses around. I sometimes regret that as, while I can take decent pictures in good light, it's got the kind of jack of all trades, master of non thing going on. Not great at distance or with motion, or macros or wide angle or low light (lots of noise and only usuable at ISO800 or less), but it can do any of those things in a pinch. Sometimes I think I used to get better pictures from my old film point and shoot with no zoom but ISO 1600 or whatever it was film (maybe 3200? some crazy large number for cheap fuji film).

Photograph is by far one of my fav pastimes .as said before in just not to good at it.Reason i love my sony is amazing battery life and amazing video some say it has better video then camcorders.plus its 16x zoom and fits in my jeans pockets

Do you still have the "Canon Rebel from 2002"? It should have an "EF" lens that MAY work with current Canon bodies. I say 'may' because I am Nikon oriented and don't know the speciifics and potential limitations of older lens. I do know that the older "FD" lens will not work as that is what pushed me to Nikon as Canon effectively cut me loose. I had to buy new lens anyway so the field was wide open, otherwise I would have stuck with Canon.

The 60D is a very nice camera, and I think the lowest level you can buy body only, use your older lens initially and upgrade the glass over time as you become aware of what you really want/need.

It all depends on what you want to get out of the hobby. I started with film and then went to the first digital point and shoots. Then on to high end mega zoom point and shoots. It wasn't until I got my DSLR and a nice lens that I was happy.

OK, here's the low down as I see it. High end point and shoot or dslr with kit lens will not get you these pics.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/Blue%20Angels%20Air%20Show%202010/IMG_9078.jpg

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/IMG_1863.jpg

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/IMG_2601.jpg


http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/DPP07D70517073923.jpgWow id love to hang with u for a day..Just to learn from you the art of photography.I get lost in many things like apature and iso

Wow id love to hang with u for a day..Just to learn from you the art of photography.I get lost in many things like apature and iso

You need to familiarise yourself with the ins and outs of aperture, shutter speed and ISO. The settings of each one affect the other.
It's pretty much second nature to me for some strange reason. I don't even have to think about it.

Do you still have the "Canon Rebel from 2002"? It should have an "EF" lens that MAY work with current Canon bodies. I say 'may' because I am Nikon oriented and don't know the speciifics and potential limitations of older lens. I do know that the older "FD" lens will not work as that is what pushed me to Nikon as Canon effectively cut me loose. I had to buy new lens anyway so the field was wide open, otherwise I would have stuck with Canon.

The 60D is a very nice camera, and I think the lowest level you can buy body only, use your older lens initially and upgrade the glass over time as you become aware of what you really want/need.

Correct. All EF lenses are compatible with all Canon DSLR bodies.

OP, just look for craiglist for a rebel xti level camera. They should be cheap enough that is not a burden.

It all depends on what you want to get out of the hobby. I started with film and then went to the first digital point and shoots. Then on to high end mega zoom point and shoots. It wasn't until I got my DSLR and a nice lens that I was happy.

OK, here's the low down as I see it. High end point and shoot or dslr with kit lens will not get you these pics.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/Blue%20Angels%20Air%20Show%202010/IMG_9078.jpg

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/IMG_1863.jpg

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/IMG_2601.jpg


http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/DPP07D70517073923.jpg

My son will agree with you 100%.

He is taking college classes right now on art and multimedia design and has been doing professional photography (and video) for a couple of years now... as he puts it...

"it's all about the glass."

I bought this Canon 300 f/4 lens 2 years ago. It was made in 1991 and works perfectly.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/DSCN0001-11.jpg

I still say in 10 years the lens will be eliminated .Tehy will just use the image sensor and there will be software that will put the image together .I realy belive that the senosr sees all the light of the image or rather it gathers the light.And with a great senosr and software it could put the image together

I picked one expensive hobby and it was cycling. My wife, on the other hand, has a Nikon D3000. Not that great at video, but the stills are excellent.

It all depends on what you want to get out of the hobby. I started with film and then went to the first digital point and shoots. Then on to high end mega zoom point and shoots. It wasn't until I got my DSLR and a nice lens that I was happy.

OK, here's the low down as I see it. High end point and shoot or dslr with kit lens will not get you these pics.



I pretty much agree with all of this. It was really after shooting some snapshots with a point-and-shoot at an Indian wedding and seeing how 90% of them were too blurred to even keep that I made up my mind.

So Chris....'s first statement is paramount here. My 300mm kit lens cost me about $200. It might get some good shots, but it will have slower AF and worse IQ than a 300mm f2.8 prime. But it cost a fraction of the price.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-VqjFVmfbBHY/TiHvnAfajbI/AAAAAAAAAl0/iKPXVCe-Tkk/s800/IMGP1965.JPG
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-zvzpUte62uI/TiHvt3DLa3I/AAAAAAAAAmk/80XkgWptNZA/s800/IMGP1992.JPG

These are not mine, but taken with the same model camera and same model lens as mine
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5015/5466659297_e983d8bd45_b.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5131/5467257036_36d6dcf359_b.jpg

VIdeo from a sony hx97 make sure you click hd. ps this camera is only around 3 hundred i got mine for 270 new.It also fits in a jeans pocket https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TujDrcoI3a0

It all depends on what you want to get out of the hobby. I started with film and then went to the first digital point and shoots. Then on to high end mega zoom point and shoots. It wasn't until I got my DSLR and a nice lens that I was happy.

OK, here's the low down as I see it. High end point and shoot or dslr with kit lens will not get you these pics.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/Blue%20Angels%20Air%20Show%202010/IMG_9078.jpg

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/IMG_1863.jpg

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/IMG_2601.jpg


Image quality depends primarily on the lens quality and the sensor quality. Neither of those is improved by the camera being of the SLR design. In fact the SLR design imposes restrictions on the way the lens is made that slightly degrades the possible quality. So actually all of the photos above could have been made just as well with a non-DSLR camera that was made with a good-sized sensor (and finally camera companies are coming out with decent sensors in non-DSLR models - himespau's Lumix is NOT one of these) and using a decent lens.

I still only have a cheap mediocre point-and-shoot, not one of the better non-DLSRs that are out now, but here are some similar pictures with a pretty mediocre P&S:

http://inlinethumb13.webshots.com/51020/2914491360047976201S600x600Q85.jpg (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2914491360047976201VmXyiR)

http://inlinethumb50.webshots.com/51441/2423449140047976201S600x600Q85.jpg (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2423449140047976201IcrblI)

Chris - agree with you that there are things that you can do with a long and fast and expensive lens on an SLR (digital or not) that you just can't do with a P&S. Alpha girl needs to decide what kind of photography she wants to do though. Street portraits can be effectively taken with a P&S if that's where her interests lie - and in fact there have been some great photographers who have used small, unobtrusive (often inexpensive) cameras for that kind of work.

Lots of people don't really explore the limits of their cameras regardless of type.

I like portrait photography
experimental? I like to play with lighting a lot.
macrophotography.

i don't know >:(

I like portrait photography
experimental? I like to play with lighting a lot.
macrophotography.

i don't know >:(
Then stick with Nikon or Canon

For portraits- DSLR-C or (preferable) Full Frame. As the sensor goes smaller and smaller depth of field suffers and depth of field control is essential for portrait photography. Remember, while the field of view may ne equivalent, everything else doesn't convert.
Lighting. Welcome to the wonderful world of off-camera lighting - both for portraits and other photography. Triggers are almost universally Nikon and Canon compatable, with few (limited choice) offering for Sony and Pentax. Plus sony flash uses a non-standard shoe that needs an adapter to work in manual on other systems. Don't even think about a 4/3 or smaller mirrorless.

Macro - far greater lens and accesories (tubes, bellows, etc) for Nikon and Canon.

Think seriously about whether you will carry and use a DSLR before you get one

For most people this is an important consideration.

I started photography using film SLR's around 40 years ago. Even with today's technology nothing can replace the full viewfinder of the SLR and so I'm not happy using anything else. I have carried and used SLR's so long that if I am serious about taking photos of something then I carry my SLR and whatever else I need to go with it. I have a very small Canon point and shoot that I got around 5 years ago. It is very slightly larger than an iphone and I could carry it in my pants pocket if I thought I might want to take some photos but didn't want to take the bigger camera.

I bought my wife a Panasonic Lumix FZ5 maybe 7 or 8 years ago while I was still using my film SLR. This is an EVF camera, electronic viewfinder. At the time Panasonic was the leader in these cameras and they still make models that are better or as good as models from any other manufacturer. The great things about this camera are its long zoom range and the image stabilization that makes the long lens practical. This camera is small but not quite pocket size. After experiencing this camera I bought myself a Nikon D70, and I've since bought a Nikon D300. The D300, even though now it has been superceded by one or two models, is still a fantastic camera. The DSLR still has a lot of advantages over other formats. To me its advantages are its versatility and its responsiveness. With older digital cameras I have aimed the camera at someone, pushed the shutter release, and had the subject walk away before the camera go around to taking the photo! With the DSLR you can take precise photos of moving subjects and capture the exact instant that you intend to capture.

I have been interested in trying some of the new mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras but I don't feel the need to replace my DSLR and these new models are not enough smaller to make it worthwhile for me. And I'm not optimistic that they are responsive enough or have a sufficient viewfinder to make them viable choices. But since I'm not in a position to spend the money if I found them to be of interest I am better off to just stay away from them.

I read somewhere that the big companies have their camera divisions make their DSLR's, the people who know and understand SLR photography. They have their consumer electronics divisions people make their lesser cameras, these are people that make DVD players and such. They don't understand photography, responsiveness, etc.

One thing about a DLSR is it's not the optimum format if you just want to put it on auto and let rip.
Point and shoots are the better tool there.

When you have access to manual controls and can change lenses it forces you to consider the composition of what you are photographing. And the more manual control you have the more complicated using the camera becomes. It's a steep learning curve. It's like learning how to paint because that is what you are doing, just with photons instead of pigments.

Do you want to put in the time to learn what f-stops are, depth of field, exposure, light decreases by the square of the distance, etc. all mean? If so, get a dslr and get as good of a body as you can afford, and buy a 50mm lens as second lens after the kit lens, and you are going to have a hell of a lot of fun with it.

As far as what brand, Nikon/Canon makes no real difference. Flip a coin, pick one and stick with it so all your lenses with work with your camera body.
If you can afford a full frame get a full frame sensor. Larger sensors have more resolution, you can crop farther and still make a decent sized print.

If you can afford a full frame get a full frame sensor. Larger sensors have more resolution, you can crop farther and still make a decent sized print.

And you'll get that sweet, large viewfinder. Some of the older full frame DSLRs are becoming a bit more reasonably priced, so much so that I've considered getting one. But I know I'd just wind up leaving it at home just like my 20d and still taking my X10 because it fits in my jacket pocket, or in the palm of my hand.

There is no question that the Sony NEX 7 (and 5) are excellent cameras. Initially I was enthralled with various mirrorless option, but the more I looked at compromises, the more it became "If you want a small camera for portability, get a small SECOND camera. Interchangeablility is not all that important." Sony in particular, while it has a small body, the lens to support the APC sensor is 100% the same size as ACP DSLR. Lens become smaller as the sensor size decreases - and the corresponding loss of DOF. Just can't get around those laws of physics.

Now the compromises in respect to the OP's stated purpose/interest. Also of note, the OP's original statement was the Canon 60D, mirrorless and other suggestions were generated responses - not an original question asking to compare vs. the 60D.

Portrait: APS-C sensor, like on the Sony, supports it but would be hesitant with smaller sensors due to the DOF issues. Obviously, a full frame sensor trumps the APS-C sensor and is why most pro wedding and protrait photographers use full frame. It is also one thing I really miss as I have not upgraded yet.


Experimental, playing with light a lot: Here the Sony fails as it is exceedingly limited. Using the classic portrait-key, fill, and hair - three light setup, it is generally not supported, and when supported no TTL. Essentially, none of the electronic triggers work with the NEX system while some support Sony's alpha system. There is a third market adapter for NEX that allows any brand trigger or flash to work, but only in manual mode. Don't know their performance but the third party flash triggers I had were an embarrasment in front of clients with their rapid flash shorting. No way to hide that something was wrong with the rapid uncontrolled pop, pop, pop, gave up and bought some Pocket Wizards. Now I enjoy both manual, TTL, and on-camera adjustment. You can get similar with two or three others (Phottix, Pixel Kings, Radiopoppers)moderately cheaper but was fed up with my Cactus experience. In reality, the premium models of those was not that much cheaper.

Macro: Yes, the sony will accept macro lens, and I even noted the cheaper option- Kenko tubeset is available in the Sony e-mount. The problem is, the off-camera lighting raises it's ugly head again which is required due to light loss of tubs/converters, closeness to a bug, or even softbox lighting.

Finally, yes the Sony will do HDR, but that may not be the most optimal. While not portrait, below is a 5 set that I used in a seminar before a camera club last Monday. It addressed scene lighting (ignore other areas as I was not going to correct verticals and oriientation of the table). Four possible ways to light the scene were available light, HDR, Fusion, and flash (multi off-camera in this case). Results speak for themselves.

These were taken with a Nikon D7000, Sigma 10-20 ultrawide angle, and aperture held constant at f8

Available light (straight) This was actually the "zero" step frame from the HDR sequence.
http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb377/tizeye1/Homes/AvailLgt1-1500.jpg

Same available light, but this time processed in photoshop, adding fill light, graduated adjustments bringing out the fireplace mre that the fill light supported, and toning down the exterior so not blown out. (A lot of work)
http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb377/tizeye1/Homes/AvailLgt2-1500.jpg

HDR - 5 frame steps 0, +/-1, +/-2 Great exterior and detail on interior. But notice the harshness that results from the detail, both the pronounced popcorn ceiling and the pronounced grain on the table. Also notive the "mudddiness" introduced in the shadows and upper wall above the door.
http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb377/tizeye1/Homes/HDR-1500.jpg

Lightroom/Enfuse plugin. Same HDE frameset. By tonal adjustment, much softer, more inviting, even shows the fireplace in less shadow than the HDR rendition.
http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb377/tizeye1/Homes/Enfus-1500px.jpg

Multi Off-camera flash. Unlike the others, very little in post - straight out of camera, just RAW conversion. Additional flash was in the living room, spreading off wall and ceiling softly lighting the fireplace. Both flashes, the other behind me bounceing/spreading off the dining room wall raised the interior lighting to enable the proper exposure of the exteriorwithout blowing either out.
http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb377/tizeye1/Homes/DSC_2543.jpg

This can only be settled by armwrestling

This can only be settled by armwrestling

:fight:


(couldn't find armwrestling)

:beer::beer:

The pic below is not post-processed and is ISO 64k

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s65/StupidlyBrave/Concerts/BG-Oct282010/bg1.jpg

And it looks it.

95% of the people that own a DSLR have no real advantage when taking pictures. They use the kit lens and pop up flash and shoot in jpg only.

I think im going to stick to my sony.Just wish it had a more zoom 16 isnt enough

95% of the people that own a DSLR have no real advantage when taking pictures. They use the kit lens and pop up flash and shoot in jpg only.
i know.

i hate using flash in any photos.

i had a few lenses for my canon ae-1.

I think im going to stick to my sony.Just wish it had a more zoom 16 isnt enough
The problem is that a big zoom on a point and shoot sucks.

When I see the masses with a nice DSLR I think of this

http://youarenotaphotographer.com/

oh my. LOL.

promise i'm not like that.

The problem is that a big zoom on a point and shoot sucks.My sony isnt bad at all just not long enough it starts at like 25mm wide i forgot where it ends i researched this camera for months.Almost went with canon but the sony battery life and video sold me.

oh my. LOL.

promise i'm not like that.

I really feel good about my photography when I look at the stuff on there.


http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/Blade%20forums/6690b192.jpg

When I see the masses with a nice DSLR I think of this

http://youarenotaphotographer.com/

I had a PJ gig shooting a memorial at a lynching site. The Atlanta paper's photographer had a pocket full of CF cards. He never even looked through the view finder. He would just wave the camera around and shove it in people's faces with his finger on the trigger until he maxed out the buffer. I bet he shot 10k+ images in an hour.

I hate selective coloring with all I hold holy.

I really feel good about my photography when I look at the stuff on there.


http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/Blade%20forums/6690b192.jpg

Good lord. What...why...I'm not even sure what to think. I suddenly feel like a brilliant photographer and a Photoshop guru. And neither of those are true!

And it looks it.

Whatever. I like the shot. Hate all you want.