...
I know though that glass is going to cost me an arm and a leg to get close to the "lens selection" I have in my bridge camera right now...
This was very much my personal feeling when I finally managed to scramble so $$ and got my first dslr (Canon 20D) with a kit lens. The pictures from Sony (828, Carl Zeiss optics) were better, at least in jpeg form, and of course the zoom was so much more versatile. Only when I got my hands on the decent glass (purchased 50/1.8 and borrowed 24-70L and 100-400L from my boss) the situation changed. But, as it's been said, with the exception of the "fantastic plastic" this is not a shoestring world...
If you know what you'll be shooting ...
Ok, so I know this is a weird thread for my first post. I definitely haven't proved any sort of cred around here, but I teach photography lessons, sell cameras, and take a lot of SLR photos. I'll post a link to my gallery, and you can decide for yourself whether to take my advice.
Anyhow, I wanted to comment on two points that have come up in this discussion. The first was the OP's suggestion that the best place to start is with a superzoom, 18-200 type lens. While those lenses make a lot of sense for certain kinds of photography, they can be extremely frustrating if you don't understand their limitations.
My reason for getting into DSLRs, initially, was to take pictures of my daughter, indoors, in available light. I was lucky to have my dad's Canon Rebel (300D) and a selection of lenses including the Canon 50 f/1.4, 24 f/2.8, 200 f/2.8L, 70-300 DO IS, and the Tamron 18-200. I quickly discovered that the last three lenses were all but useless for the type of photography I was doing. In fact, it's safe to say that if all I'd had was the Tamron, I might have given up right at the start. The 50 f/1.4, in particular, gave me the right too for the job. And what's more, the wide aperture gave me some harsh lessons in depth of field. I have a lot of pictures of people with one eye in focus and the other eye blurry ...
Later, when I took some of the longer lenses out into their element, I learned about their potential. The Tamron is perfect for an outing (an outdoor outing, that is) with the family, the 200 makes for extremely flattering portraits, etc. My point, though, is that if you're a beginner and you know you're mostly going to be shooting your family around the house, the 50 f/1.8 would probably be a much better choice than any superzoom. If you have a few extra bucks, get the f/1.4. Either way, it'll be cheaper than an 18-200.
I also wondered about those of you saying that you get better IQ with a point-and-shoot than a DSLR on Green mode. I've seen countless pictures shot with Canon Rebels, Nikon D40s, Olympus E-420s, etc., in full auto mode, and they almost always outperform even the best P&S cameras. As the light gets lower, the differences get more pronounced. Anyway, just my observation.
BTW, I just found this forum, and from what I've seen, I'm really going to enjoy it!
Ok, so I know this is a weird thread for my first post. I definitely haven't proved any sort of cred around here, but I teach photography lessons, sell cameras, and take a lot of SLR photos. I'll post a link to my gallery, and you can decide for yourself whether to take my advice.
Anyhow, I wanted to comment on two points that have come up in this discussion. The first was the OP's suggestion that the best place to start is with a superzoom, 18-200 type lens. While those lenses make a lot of sense for certain kinds of photography, they can be extremely frustrating if you don't understand their limitations.
My reason for getting into DSLRs, initially, was to take pictures of my daughter, indoors, in available light. I was lucky to have my dad's Canon Rebel (300D) and a selection of lenses including the Canon 50 f/1.4, 24 f/2.8, 200 f/2.8L, 70-300 DO IS, and the Tamron 18-200. I quickly discovered that the last three lenses were all but useless for the type of photography I was doing. In fact, it's safe to say that if all I'd had was the Tamron, I might have given up right at the start. The 50 f/1.4, in particular, gave me the right too for the job. And what's more, the wide aperture gave me some harsh lessons in depth of field. I have a lot of pictures of people with one eye in focus and the other eye blurry ...
Later, when I took some of the longer lenses out into their element, I learned about their potential. The Tamron is perfect for an outing (an outdoor outing, that is) with the family, the 200 makes for extremely flattering portraits, etc. My point, though, is that if you're a beginner and you know you're mostly going to be shooting your family around the house, the 50 f/1.8 would probably be a much better choice than any superzoom. If you have a few extra bucks, get the f/1.4. Either way, it'll be cheaper than an 18-200.
I also wondered about those of you saying that you get better IQ with a point-and-shoot than a DSLR on Green mode. I've seen countless pictures shot with Canon Rebels, Nikon D40s, Olympus E-420s, etc., in full auto mode, and they almost always outperform even the best P&S cameras. As the light gets lower, the differences get more pronounced. Anyway, just my observation.
BTW, I just found this forum, and from what I've seen, I'm really going to enjoy it!
I too just found this forum (first post!), and look forward to sharing some pictures and gaining a lot of knowledge.
Although I already own equipment, reading this thread has been very helpful. About two years ago I bought my first DSLR (Oly E-500) and have since upgraded (to the E-520).
Thanks for all the input from everyone who has posted. I look forward to reading much much more.
I too just found this forum (first post!), and look forward to sharing some pictures and gaining a lot of knowledge.
Although I already own equipment, reading this thread has been very helpful. About two years ago I bought my first DSLR (Oly E-500) and have since upgraded (to the E-520).
Thanks for all the input from everyone who has posted. I look forward to reading much much more.
Find a Canon 20D ($300 used), unless you print 40" posters you don't need more than 8 MegaPixels and the D20's 5 frames per second burst for action and its ISO 3200 capability set it apart from the similarly priced Rebels. Buy a Sigma 18-200mm OS lens (from $250 used to as low as $375 new). Go out and shoot pictures for a month before buying the next two lenses. Use this time to learn Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO, and I mean learn these concepts backward and forward. Good lenses in the hands of someone who does not understand the basics of photography will rarely yield excellent results. Total initial cost $550.
Now go get "better" lenses, but keep the 18-200 as your inexpensive "walkaround" lens. You WILL go places where you want your camera but not $1,000 worth of lenses and you WILL enjoy not having to change lenses to get a shot. Buy a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ($275 used) and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 ($450 used) and a Sigma 1.4x EX teleconverter ($125 used). These two give you wide angle up to 200mm (effectively 320mm on the 1.6 crop sensor) at f/2.8 and up to 450mm at f3.5 with the 1.4x TC. Total cost to add "better" lenses $850.
Total cost of all equipment $1,400 and you have what even the pros would call a "decent" setup. Bear in mind that many of the pros and those without financial constraints have single lenses that could not be bought for that same $1,400.
Here is the kicker, only buy used used equipment if you have to, and then only after asking the right questions: Find out why they are selling. If they give a believable reason, such as an upgrade, and are willing to tell you what they are upgrading to, and they seem open and knowledgable, it is probably fairly safe to buy. It is even safer if you buy from a regular forum poster on Dgrin or another photography forum since these people have reputations to protect.
Last comment. If money is no object, buy the best and buy it new. I have not steered you to the "best" gear, I have steered you to affordable gear that should produce excellent results, rememberuing that 50% of every shot is reflective of the user, not the equipment. My suggestions are for all of us who want to shoot, have, and share excellent photos on a budget.
Now where the Dgrin experts come in is here. If you really knowledgable Grinners put your stamp of approval on this post it will save the rookies an IMMENSE amount of research and time. I am fully aware that each of you may have an opinion that varies slightly or maybe leans toward a lens that you prefer slightly over one I have suggested. Please avoid that impulse. The newbie can find that advice many places in this forum and in a hundred places on the web. I have probably spent 200 hours reading posts and reviews and I hope to simplify that process for others.
If I were a financially limited rookie in search of guidance and I read this post and then saw 10 or 15 of you experts give the advice a "Thumbs Up", I would probably go this route. So, if you are knowledgable and can agree with this approach, leave a brief comment of support. Feel free to say it is bad advice if that is what you really think, but don't do that if you are 90% on board, that will only defeat the purpose of this advice. If you can add good information or elaborate on why the direction is reasonable, feel free to do so.
All of us rookies thank all of you for the advice and support as we begin to dabble in your photographic world.
I've been doing some research and it seems that many people are finding that image quality of the new Canon digital rebel 450D is as every bit as good as the Canon 40D and 50D. The 40D and 50D offer a few more options more suited for the progessional photographer. The Rebel 450D and Canon 40D and 50D both have the digi III sensor.
All my work in my smugmug port is done with a Canon 400D rebel. I use a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 (great lens for those on a budget) , Canon 17-40mm f/4, and the Canon 50mm 1.8. The Canon 50mm 1.8 is one heck of a lens for $89. Anyways, the Canon rebels with good glass can produce good and saleable images for those on a budget. Good luck with your camera choices.
Comments
Ok, so I know this is a weird thread for my first post. I definitely haven't proved any sort of cred around here, but I teach photography lessons, sell cameras, and take a lot of SLR photos. I'll post a link to my gallery, and you can decide for yourself whether to take my advice.
Anyhow, I wanted to comment on two points that have come up in this discussion. The first was the OP's suggestion that the best place to start is with a superzoom, 18-200 type lens. While those lenses make a lot of sense for certain kinds of photography, they can be extremely frustrating if you don't understand their limitations.
My reason for getting into DSLRs, initially, was to take pictures of my daughter, indoors, in available light. I was lucky to have my dad's Canon Rebel (300D) and a selection of lenses including the Canon 50 f/1.4, 24 f/2.8, 200 f/2.8L, 70-300 DO IS, and the Tamron 18-200. I quickly discovered that the last three lenses were all but useless for the type of photography I was doing. In fact, it's safe to say that if all I'd had was the Tamron, I might have given up right at the start. The 50 f/1.4, in particular, gave me the right too for the job. And what's more, the wide aperture gave me some harsh lessons in depth of field. I have a lot of pictures of people with one eye in focus and the other eye blurry ...
Later, when I took some of the longer lenses out into their element, I learned about their potential. The Tamron is perfect for an outing (an outdoor outing, that is) with the family, the 200 makes for extremely flattering portraits, etc. My point, though, is that if you're a beginner and you know you're mostly going to be shooting your family around the house, the 50 f/1.8 would probably be a much better choice than any superzoom. If you have a few extra bucks, get the f/1.4. Either way, it'll be cheaper than an 18-200.
I also wondered about those of you saying that you get better IQ with a point-and-shoot than a DSLR on Green mode. I've seen countless pictures shot with Canon Rebels, Nikon D40s, Olympus E-420s, etc., in full auto mode, and they almost always outperform even the best P&S cameras. As the light gets lower, the differences get more pronounced. Anyway, just my observation.
BTW, I just found this forum, and from what I've seen, I'm really going to enjoy it!
And here's where you can find my pics:
http://bcurtis.phanfare.com
Welcome to Dgrin, Brian!
Although I already own equipment, reading this thread has been very helpful. About two years ago I bought my first DSLR (Oly E-500) and have since upgraded (to the E-520).
Thanks for all the input from everyone who has posted. I look forward to reading much much more.
http://wolftep.smugmug.com/
I've been doing some research and it seems that many people are finding that image quality of the new Canon digital rebel 450D is as every bit as good as the Canon 40D and 50D. The 40D and 50D offer a few more options more suited for the progessional photographer. The Rebel 450D and Canon 40D and 50D both have the digi III sensor.
All my work in my smugmug port is done with a Canon 400D rebel. I use a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 (great lens for those on a budget) , Canon 17-40mm f/4, and the Canon 50mm 1.8. The Canon 50mm 1.8 is one heck of a lens for $89. Anyways, the Canon rebels with good glass can produce good and saleable images for those on a budget. Good luck with your camera choices.
Oh oops, my bad.
Is there a lot less noise in the higher ISO ranges with the 50D vs the 40D? I've been reading that some people arn't that happy with the 50D.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50749&highlight=50d
There's some difference in noise levels, but yes, the differences are mostly elsewhere.
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/