Would appreciate some opinions on starter dSLR cameras

cwoodard

Hi everyone, I can imagine this question gets asked a thousand times and for that I apologize. I did do a search and read through some posts, but still find myself uncertain.

I need to stay under $1,000 ($800 would be better probably). I'd like to get a camera with the live preview feature - is that actually usable nowadays with dSLRs?. I want to take pictures in RAW format and would prefer 12 megapixels+. But would consider 10.

I have been using an Olympus C-5050 and have been happy with it; just feeling ready to try an SLR and try to become a better (amateur) photographer.

I photograph mostly people (children) and dogs, and have been trying to improve upon portrait style photos, both candid and more posed. There will also be the occasional trip where I enjoy taking landscape/scenery photos as well.

I have been reading up on the dpreview.com site as well as cnet.com and having a hard time narrowing down all the models.

Thanks a ton!

The Nikon D90 looks interesting, if a little more expensive than I was thinking. What's the deal with image stabilization and Nikons? Something about it being in the lenses and not the body? Is that true with the D90? Does it affect picture quality?

swintonphoto

I'd look at the Olympus E-510 or E-520 (520 has a slightly larger screen, and more live view focusing options). They are feature packed, extremely well priced, and produce excellent image quality. I use the E-510 as my main camera for my photo studio. Great size, has in-camera image stabilization, and the Zuiko lenses are nothing short of amazing. You can get a 2 lens kit for a real steal.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/488309-REG/Olympus_262072_Evolt_E_510_SLR_Digital.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/580755-REG/Olympus__E_520_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

I have been an avid Olympus DSLR user for many years now, and LOVE them. I give them 2 thumbs up

Cato

cwoodard wrote:

The Nikon D90 looks interesting, if a little more expensive than I was thinking. What's the deal with image stabilization and Nikons? Something about it being in the lenses and not the body? Is that true with the D90? Does it affect picture quality?

Nikon (& Canon) indeed have image stabilization (IS) built into select lenses. For Nikon this is labeled VR (Vibration Reduction). Olympus, Pentax & Sony use body-based image stabilization (CCD-shift technology). Conventional wisdom has it that lens-based image stabilization is more effective than body-based stabilization, especially at the longer telephoto end of the spectrum. That said, I've been able to get sharp photos with my Pentax K100D shooting 300mm (450mm 35mm format equivalent) @ 1/15 s. Not consistently, but sometimes.

The downside to lens-based image stabilization is that you have to purchase specific lenses that are stabilized. It used to be that these lenses were more expensive than their non-stabilized brethren, but I don't know if this is the case any more. Cameras with body-based image stabilization will, in theory, allow you to have image stabilization with every lens that fits that camera, provided the camera allows you to enter then lens' parameters.

How did you come up with the 12MP figure?

One good note: all current DSLRs are capable of producing excellent photos. It's the nut behind the camera that makes it all go.

hoghead

camera

cwoodard wrote:

Hi everyone, I can imagine this question gets asked a thousand times and for that I apologize. I did do a search and read through some posts, but still find myself uncertain.

I need to stay under $1,000 ($800 would be better probably). I'd like to get a camera with the live preview feature - is that actually usable nowadays with dSLRs?. I want to take pictures in RAW format and would prefer 12 megapixels+. But would consider 10.

I have been using an Olympus C-5050 and have been happy with it; just feeling ready to try an SLR and try to become a better (amateur) photographer.

I photograph mostly people (children) and dogs, and have been trying to improve upon portrait style photos, both candid and more posed. There will also be the occasional trip where I enjoy taking landscape/scenery photos as well.

I have been reading up on the dpreview.com site as well as cnet.com and having a hard time narrowing down all the models.

Thanks a ton!

The Nikon D90 looks interesting, if a little more expensive than I was thinking. What's the deal with image stabilization and Nikons? Something about it being in the lenses and not the body? Is that true with the D90? Does it affect picture quality?

Check out the Pentax K20D. It has all the features you are looking for and them some and it's in your price range. It's a hard camera to beat, even in ther upper line. Look at some of the reviews on the web. It's way above the starter level at a really good price.

Scott_Quier

It would seem that the Canon XSi with the kit lens (18-55 IS) would fill the bill quite nicely. Check out the Steve's Digicams review.

As for pricing, well B&H has it for sale here for under $700 as a kit. Or, you can go with just the body (here) for under $600 and pick up a nice 3rd party lens like the Tamron 24-75 ($340) or 17-50 ($439).

I think that would meet all your criteria and then some. And, best of all, it's a Canon deal

Another idea would be to pick up a used Canon 40D and one of the lenses mentioned above. This might come in a little over your $1K budget, but it would be a killer starter DSLR.:ivar

cwoodard

Thank you so much for the replies. Going to go read up on all these suggestions now!

Scott_Quier wrote:

It would seem that the Canon XSi with the kit lens (18-55 IS) would fill the bill quite nicely. Check out the Steve's Digicams review.

As for pricing, well B&H has it for sale here for under $700 as a kit. Or, you can go with just the body (here) for under $600 and pick up a nice 3rd party lens like the Tamron 24-75 ($340) or 17-50 ($439).

I think that would meet all your criteria and then some. And, best of all, it's a Canon deal

Another idea would be to pick up a used Canon 40D and one of the lenses mentioned above. This might come in a little over your $1K budget, but it would be a killer starter DSLR.:ivar

swintonphoto

Cato wrote:

One good note: all current DSLRs are capable of producing excellent photos. It's the nut behind the camera that makes it all go.

cwoodard

Cato wrote:

What kinds of photography do you plan on engaging in?

How did you come up with the 12MP figure?

Mostly people (children) - candid and portraits. And dogs. And the occasional scenery/landscape shots.

12MP seems to be the high end for amateur dSLR cameras right now. I figure if I'm going to shell out a bunch of money for a new camera I might as well not buy one that's already out of date which will then make me want to buy a new camera in a few months.... which will not make my husband very happy!

NikonsandVstroms

If you're a Costco member they are selling the Olympus E-420 for $400 with the 14 to 42 kit lens. The downside to this is that it doesn't have image stabilization but with extra money you could grab someone lenses.

swintonphoto

cwoodard wrote:

12MP seems to be the high end for amateur dSLR cameras right now. I figure if I'm going to shell out a bunch of money for a new camera I might as well not buy one that's already out of date which will then make me want to buy a new camera in a few months.... which will not make my husband very happy!

Just a bit of info on MP - I think the race for more MP is a bit ridiculous. I used a 6 MP DSLR for my photo studio for years, and make beautiful 16"x20" prints that are sharp. While it does sound nice to have more MP, the need for more is now extremely over-rated. File sizes get larger, requiring more hard drive storage space and a faster computer. Unless you are regularly making 30x40" prints, honestly anything above 6 MP will be more than sufficient. There are actually several pros on here who still use 5MP and 6MP cameras without any problem. Just because some cameras have more MP doesn't mean they are necessary. It is in large part a marketing tool at this point, not really a practical tool. Just my thoughts.

Also, as mentioned above, the E-410 & E-420 are also great cameras.

cwoodard

swintonphoto wrote:

Just a bit of info on MP - I think the race for more MP is a bit ridiculous. I used a 6 MP DSLR for my photo studio for years, and make beautiful 16"x20" prints that are sharp. While it does sound nice to have more MP, the need for more is now extremely over-rated. File sizes get larger, requiring more hard drive storage space and a faster computer. Unless you are regularly making 30x40" prints, honestly anything above 6 MP will be more than sufficient. There are actually several pros on here who still use 5MP and 6MP cameras without any problem. Just because some cameras have more MP doesn't mean they are necessary. It is in large part a marketing tool at this point, not really a practical tool. Just my thoughts.

Also, as mentioned above, the E-410 & E-420 are also great cameras.

Good to know - thanks

cwoodard

One thing that makes me hesitate about the Olympus is the cost for accessories. I want to get an external flash, for example. On BHPhoto it's $429 for an Olympus external flash!!

$220 for a flash for the Canon Rebel XSi

$184 for a flash for the Nikon D90

$370 for a flash for the Canon 40D

cwoodard

Is there a Nikon equivalent (price-wise) the to the Olympus E-520 and the Canon Rebel XSi?

Scott_Quier

swintonphoto wrote:

Just a bit of info on MP - I think the race for more MP is a bit ridiculous. I used a 6 MP DSLR for my photo studio for years, and make beautiful 16"x20" prints that are sharp. While it does sound nice to have more MP, the need for more is now extremely over-rated. File sizes get larger, requiring more hard drive storage space and a faster computer. Unless you are regularly making 30x40" prints, honestly anything above 6 MP will be more than sufficient. There are actually several pros on here who still use 5MP and 6MP cameras without any problem. Just because some cameras have more MP doesn't mean they are necessary. It is in large part a marketing tool at this point, not really a practical tool. Just my thoughts.

Also, as mentioned above, the E-410 & E-420 are also great cameras.

with this - the number of MPixels is over-rated.

Not to say that I am anyone's photographic genius, but I have made a number of very nice photos with "simple" 8.2 MP Canon 20D/30D cameras. Check out some here and here.

I bought my 50D cameras not for the pixel count, but for some of the other features that will make photographing weddings much easier and/or even possible - low light is something you have to contend with at a wedding/reception and the low-light performance of the 50D is soooo much better than the 30D cameras I used last season.

swintonphoto

cwoodard wrote:

One thing that makes me hesitate about the Olympus is the cost for accessories. I want to get an external flash, for example. On BHPhoto it's $429 for an Olympus external flash!!

$220 for a flash for the Canon Rebel XSi

$184 for a flash for the Nikon D90

$370 for a flash for the Canon 40D

I use the Olympus FL-36 for all my event photography. It is only $229. Here are the three flashes Olympus makes that can sync with the Olympus cameras:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=search&A=search&Q=&ci=0&sb=bs%2Cupper(ds)&sq=asc&sortDrop=Brand%3A+A+to+Z&ac=&bsi=&bhs=t&ci=2609&shs=&at=Brand_Olympus&basicSubmit=Submit+Query

The FL-50 is significantly more powerful than the flashes you have listed for the Rebel XSI and the D90. The FL-36 has been more than sufficient for my business.

Also - the FL-36 and the FL-50 can sync wirelessly with the E-520 & E-420

Qarik

I just got the d90. Not sure on the canon side but the d90 fits your requirements...and then some. The d90 is basically the d300 with respect to image quality and low light performance since they share the same or very similar sensors and pixel processing. It is definitely the best "value" in nikon land.

cwoodard

I'm leaning towards the Canon Rebel XSi. The review on dpreview.com suggested that it could really benefit by a better lens than comes with the kit, but I am not sure what lens I would get instead. Is there a good lens out there that could be an all around lens? Something with some zoom but still usable for close range stuff.

ziggy53

cwoodard wrote:

I'm leaning towards the Canon Rebel XSi. The review on dpreview.com suggested that it could really benefit by a better lens than comes with the kit, but I am not sure what lens I would get instead. Is there a good lens out there that could be an all around lens? Something with some zoom but still usable for close range stuff.

I don't think a single lens has enough quality and range to keep you happy very long. For a Canon crop 1.6x camera, like the XSi, I suggest at minimum:

Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L USM

Add a closeup diopter to the 70-200mm lens and you have a very nice, professional quality kit with good range and a very competent close-focus capability. You do need a good flash as well. I use Sigma flashes and I can recommend the Sigma EF-530 DG Super for Canon E-TTL II.

http://sigma4less.com/sigma-ef-530-dg-super-e-ttl-shoe-mount-flash-for-canon-eos-with-e-ttl-ii-operation.html

It is more than you originally wanted to spend but if you want to save money, get a Canon XT/350D instead. You can always upgrade the body later and keep those lenses. The better lenses will give you more quality results than the better camera.

JohnC

My vote is for the Nikon D90.

cwoodard

JohnC wrote:

My vote is for the Nikon D90.

Totally wish I could afford that, but alas, it's not in the price range right now

Cato

cwoodard wrote:

I'm leaning towards the Canon Rebel XSi. The review on dpreview.com suggested that it could really benefit by a better lens than comes with the kit, but I am not sure what lens I would get instead. Is there a good lens out there that could be an all around lens? Something with some zoom but still usable for close range stuff.

Actually, DPReview praises the kit lens:

"Compact, sharp stabilized kit lens (though it can't match the sensor's superb resolving capabilities)"

Everything I have read concerning Canon's new kit lens has been very positive. Why worry about replacing it before you've even tried it?

Eventually, you can replace the kit lens with something else. By this time, you may have developed new photographic interests that you don't have currently, and then can choose lenses accordingly.

cwoodard

Cato wrote:

Actually, DPReview praises the kit lens:

"Compact, sharp stabilized kit lens (though it can't match the sensor's superb resolving capabilities)"

Everything I have read concerning Canon's new kit lens has been very positive. Why worry about replacing it before you've even tried it?

Eventually, you can replace the kit lens with something else. By this time, you may have developed new photographic interests that you don't have currently, and then can choose lenses accordingly.

I did end up ordering the camera just now with the lens kit I looked at pictures taken with the lens that are well beyond anything I can take right now so I figured it would do very well for the time being!

MrChristopher

This thread has been useful to me too. Answered some questions I had and was looking around the site for.

I too am going to go for the Digital Rebel XSi. Looks like a fantastic camera for the money and I think it's at the perfect price point for me. Will have a proper hunt around for the best deal though.
Definitely a step up from my Sony DSC-V1.

Thanks to all those in the thread with their suggestions.

ziggy53

MrChristopher wrote:

This thread has been useful to me too. Answered some questions I had and was looking around the site for.

I too am going to go for the Digital Rebel XSi. Looks like a fantastic camera for the money and I think it's at the perfect price point for me. Will have a proper hunt around for the best deal though.
Definitely a step up from my Sony DSC-V1.

Thanks to all those in the thread with their suggestions.

MrChristopher, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Be sure to let us know what you decide and how it works out for you.

MrChristopher

ziggy53 wrote:

MrChristopher, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Be sure to let us know what you decide and how it works out for you.

Thanks for the welcome.

You'll no doubt see me lurking about for tips around the place

ziggy53

cwoodard wrote:

I did end up ordering the camera just now with the lens kit I looked at pictures taken with the lens that are well beyond anything I can take right now so I figured it would do very well for the time being!

Congratulations on the purchase. Please do keep us informed about your thoughts concerning the camera and lens once you've had a chance to experiment with the system.

cwoodard

ziggy53 wrote:

Congratulations on the purchase. Please do keep us informed about your thoughts concerning the camera and lens once you've had a chance to experiment with the system.

Will do! Thank you very much to everyone who offered their advice and opinions. It's greatly appreciated. I am SOOOOO excited!

cwoodard

So my first challenge with my new camera (which arrived today! yay!) is going to be shooting portrait pics of a bunch of babies in halloween costumes on Tuesday. It's going to be indoors, no natural light, fluorescent lights, black backdrop.

I have the kit lens, an EF-S 55-250mm IS lens, a 430x flash, a little tripod, should have a cable release by then... (although I am not sure whether I'm going to be able to use a tripod with a bunch of squirmy babies).

What ISO would you shoot in? 400?

Which lens would you use? I've read that it's a good idea to take portaits with a zoom lens zoomed in to between 85-105. But in this setting, would the faster kit lens be better to get sharper pictures?

Thanks!

I might post the pictures afterwards if they come out well enough and hope to get some feedback on how to improve!

Scott_Quier

cwoodard wrote:

So my first challenge with my new camera (which arrived today! yay!) is going to be shooting portrait pics of a bunch of babies in halloween costumes on Tuesday. It's going to be indoors, no natural light, fluorescent lights, black backdrop.

I have the kit lens, an EF-S 55-250mm IS lens, a 430x flash, a little tripod, should have a cable release by then... (although I am not sure whether I'm going to be able to use a tripod with a bunch of squirmy babies).

What ISO would you shoot in? 400?

Which lens would you use? I've read that it's a good idea to take portaits with a zoom lens zoomed in to between 85-105. But in this setting, would the faster kit lens be better to get sharper pictures?

Thanks!

I might post the pictures afterwards if they come out well enough and hope to get some feedback on how to improve!

You don't say what camera you got, but we know you have one of the crop cameras - it's all cool.

Here's what would do:

• Shot in manual mode, Aperture: f/5.6 or so, shutter speed 1/125sec, ISO 200
• Focal length somewhere between 55mm and 65mm (gotta remember the 1.6 crop factor)
• No need for the tripod, but it wouldn't hurt either - just make things a little slower maybe
• Shoot in RAW format - to better handle exposure problems
• Check out the Better Bounce Card (google is your friend) - make one and use it as directed
• Watch your histogram
• Expose to the right <-- link, read it
• If you don't know about it, read up on and study "Flash Exposure Compensation"

If you do all the above, you should be able to return a well-received product. Good luck and would love to see some of them once you've got them processed.

ziggy53

cwoodard wrote:

...

What ISO would you shoot in? 400?

Which lens would you use? I've read that it's a good idea to take portaits with a zoom lens zoomed in to between 85-105. But in this setting, would the faster kit lens be better to get sharper pictures?

Thanks!

I might post the pictures afterwards if they come out well enough and hope to get some feedback on how to improve!

ISO 400 or 800 should be good. If you can get to the location any time before, check out both lenses and see which one seems to work better for you. With those lenses they tend to be sharpest at around f5.6 for the wide end to f8 at the long end, but f5.6 may be best overall to match ambient lighting contribution.

I would construct a DIY flash modifier of some sort, depending on the type of ceilings. These are my favorites:

http://www.fototime.com/inv/908195739C4C0D3

http://abetterbouncecard.com/

If you can't get to the actual venue just find someplace as similar as possible to practice. You need some testing time and experience with the new setup before the actual event.

cwoodard

Oh sorry, I was referring to earlier in the thread - I ended up getting the Canon EOS Rebel XSI.

Thank you very much for the tips! Much appreciated.

Scott_Quier wrote:

You don't say what camera you got, but we know you have one of the crop cameras - it's all cool.

Here's what would do:

• Shot in manual mode, Aperture: f/5.6 or so, shutter speed 1/125sec, ISO 200
• Focal length somewhere between 45 and 60mm (gotta remember the 1.6 crop factor)
• No need for the tripod, but it wouldn't hurt either - just make things a little slower maybe
• Shoot in RAW format - to better handle exposure problems
• Check out the Better Bounce Card (google is your friend) - make one and use it as directed
• Watch your histogram
• Expose to the right <-- link, read it
• If you don't know about it, read up on and study "Flash Exposure Compensation"

If you do all the above, you should be able to return a well-received product. Good luck and would love to see some of them once you've got them processed.