So maybe I should get a dSLR after all - but which one?

Ciel_Rouge

Alright, so based on your recommendations over in the Nikon superzoom thread, I decided to seriously consider a dSLR. My decision is based on:

1) ability to focus more quickly and efficiently than a P&S (didn't even know a dSLR would be quicker at auto focusing than a superzoom)

2) larger sensor and less noise issues

3) depth of field

So just to remind you what my requirements were in the original thread: my top priority is image quality, period. I'd rather avoid a situation where I have "the shot of a lifetime" but it has technical flaws or is technically compromised altogether because of my camera's shortcomings. And since I am at a point in my life when I can actually afford making decisions based on quality and not price alone, I would like to make that informed decision and have adequate results shortly thereafter. I do realize that I have yet to develop my skills as a photographer but I wish to kick the issue of my camera suddenly stopping me in my tracks anywhere along the road.

I would like to make my decision before the next event in my city which is going to take place within the next few days

Therefore: please recommend some dSLRs which would be similiar in price to a d500 superzoom. I suppose that would be some lower end dSLRs but I still want to get the best I can afford. Perhaps something other than Nikon or Canon could be more competitive in terms of price but I am not sure if their image quality is in the same range. So, I am humbly waiting for your recommendations and intending to put my dSLR debut shots in the gallery soon ;-)

Molotov Everything

This reply does not address all of your questions but depth of field is a product of the lens you put on the camera, not the camera itself. DOF is determined by what the aperture of the lens is set to and how close the lens is to the subject. The reason dslrs are preferable to P&S cameras for getting those nice blurry backgrounds is because you can swap lenses and get one with a really wide maximum aperture more so than you can with a P&S where you're stuck with whatever they gave you.

Harryb

There are 3 DSLRs out there that go for less than $500 (with kit lens), the Canon Rebel XS, the Nikon 3000 and the Sony A390.

Ciel_Rouge

Yeap, I see what you mean and the freedom with lenses is also one of the factors which could potentially draw me over into the dSLR camp. BUT: in the dSLR I shall also be "stuck" with 1 lens due to financial reasons - at least initially and also because I am not very relaxed with changing my lenses at events where insects, leaves and dust could be blown by the wind into the camera body or passers by could bump into me or something.

So basically what I wish to find now is a dSLR that would give me the focal range which I actually USED on a borrowed Fujifilm S1600 superzoom while shooting a recent event in my city. The EXIF data in my files tells me that the shots I found most accomplished were often shot at 5 mm and 37.8 mm and sometimes 14.6 mm but I guess I need to convert those values somehow as the specifications for this camera give a possible range of 28 to 420 mm So I do not really need some ultra zoom of 100x ;-) but keeping the zoom range I actually used while shooting back then with the S1600 while boosting the image quality beyond anything the S1600 could give me would be the holy grail in my quest for my next camera

HurtNoMore

Molotov Everything wrote: »

This reply does not address all of your questions but depth of field is a product of the lens you put on the camera, not the camera itself. DOF is determined by what the aperture of the lens is set to and how close the lens is to the subject. The reason dslrs are preferable to P&S cameras for getting those nice blurry backgrounds is because you can swap lenses and get one with a really wide maximum aperture more so than you can with a P&S where you're stuck with whatever they gave you.

Also dslr means bigger sensor, which means it can handle more light (larger aperture) which will enable you to get shallower DOF.

Dirquist

First off, Im propably not somebody that should be giving advice. Im pretty new in the world myself. Also, I have no clue about the S1600, but I just got a T3i fairly recently and it came with a 18-55mm and I purchased a 55-200mm lens for $199 new. I feel like I got the range pretty well covered. Sounds like you may want to go out further than that though. They had a 55-300 non IS lens for the same price but I wanted the IS more than the extra 100mm. That being said, I do get the feeling from reading your post (consider I dont know you though) that you might be more of a P&S kinda guy. I say that because when I got into this the changing of the lenses and the whole science of it is what I am interested in. You dont sound like you wanna be carrying around a big heavy camera that has a bag for other lenses like me. But like I said I dont know you and Im making a good deal of assumptions so please understand Im not telling you anything, just suggesting.

Good luck, its lots of fun.

EDIT: Thought Id ad an example of some blur I got with the cheap 55-200mm lens I bought. Remember, I had no clue at that point and so these are total amateur photos. Just making an example of the blur you can get and you can be a total dummy and still do it. Click to see full size.


Some Kind of Bird by pseudohippy, on Flickr


Jacob In Grass by pseudohippy, on Flickr


Jacob on Stomach in Grass 2 by pseudohippy, on Flickr

Ciel_Rouge

HarryB: I am in Europe, outside the US The amount I intend to spend is between 1000 and 1600 in our local currency units which equals a typical monthly salary in my country Here are the cameras available to me, with the prices expressed in the same local currency units:

Sony A290 - 1400
Olympus E-450 - 1400
Pentax K20D - 1500
Nikon D3000 - 1500
Canon 1000D - 1700
Nikon D3100 - 1800
Nikon D5000 - 1800
Sony A390 - 1800

Dirquist

Here I am again. Let me know if you want me to remove my pics from your thread. I see you are focused on camera models now. I was told by many an expert that more time should be spent first on pricing and reading reviews on the type of lenses you will be using because while the bodys come and go the lenses are kept much much longer. So dont buy a body now and find out you wish you could have bought into the canon or whoevers line of lenses.

ThatCanonGuy

Well, the P500 costs 350 US dollars, so... I have to ask, do you mind buying used gear? Because buying used can really save you money while getting you a much better camera. If you can deal with a few paint scratches on your camera (maybe not even that then you can get a 20D for just a little over $200. Add a new 50mm 1.8 for just over $100, and bingo. You have a very nice DOF setup that costs about the same or less than a P500. Later you can add better lenses like the 70-200/f4 (costs almost twice as much as a P500, but it's well worth it) and 17-40 (similar price as the 70-200) or upgrade the body.

Buying used can get you a $200 20D (see above). The lowest cost Canon DSLR new is the Rebel XS, which is more than a 20D. The 20D has 2 more fps, way better AF, and better build (once you hold a 20D, you won't want to hold a Rebel . The Rebel has 2 more mps (pretty much nothing) and a bigger screen. For me, I'd much rather have all the features of the 20D (and all that cash that I saved by getting the 20D) than a bigger screen .

Ciel_Rouge

ThatCanonGuy: Actually I DO MIND buying used equipment. Here is why:

1. I do not know if somebody scratched the lens
2. I do not know if somebody did something to the sensor
3. I do not know if somebody dropped the whole gear
4. I do not know if somebody made modifications or had repairs performed
5. NO WARRANTY
6. The funds saved on buying used may not really be saved based on all of the above

However, I think I have now come to a point where I shall simply discuss a new set of choices with you which are specific models available to me.

Dirquist: I am not entirely a P&S guy. This is my experience so far but I am strongly inclined to go beyond. I do not mind the science behind it. But I do not want the fiddling factor to go in the way when I am about to shoot something that shall not be available the next sec - a unique facial expression, unique angle of a moving object etc. This is not sports photography that I am doing, I do not need to freeze motorcyclists in the air and such but I do sometimes need to take a shot "right here, right now" and the almost instantaneous focus and no processing lag has a very strong appeal to me.

At this stage I guess I am a "dSLR kit lens guy" for now. I am not buying into the Nikon line or Canon line yet. If I have some significant issues with my purchase, I will be able to resell it and invest into the other line as I will not have invested in anything more than the body and the kit lens.

Ciel_Rouge

OK guys: Nikon D3000 or Canon 1000D or Sony A290?
Based on your substantial assistance I have now narrowed my search to THREE finalists. Here we go:

Nikon D3000
Canon 1000D
Sony A290

I would particularly appreciate opinions from the owners of one or more of the particular camera models but of course everyone is invited As mentioned in previous threads, I am looking for:

- as little as possible of noise issues, especially creepy algorithms removing actual detail along with the noise
- sharpness, but no artificial, exaggerated or otherwise creepy sharpness
- as little as possible of chromatic aberration in strongly contrasting areas
- as little as possible of spherical distortion towards the edges
- ability to focus as rapidly and as precisely as possible

I hope to be the "happy owner" within the next few days and start putting my first debut photos up for you to critique ;-)

Dirquist

Gotcha, sounds good to me. Im shooting a lot of pics of my baby and let me tell ya you can shoot mighty fast with a dslr and you wont miss a thing. Good luck to you sir.

ThatCanonGuy

Which is why I buy from reputable people and ask for photos of the equipment before buying used . Anyway, there are advantages of buying into Canon or Nikon, whether you're buying new or used. If in the future you want to get into more expensive lenses and such there is no need to sell all the gear that you bought in the first place.

Of your list there, I think the Nikon D3100 is the best deal. It's so much camera for a (relatively) small price. It's worth the few extra hundred over the K20D or 1000D, in my opinion. Nice big screen, nice 14mp sensor (the good image quality you mention), and compatibility with all that nice Nikkor glass. Add an inexpensive 50mm/1.8 or 35mm/1.8 (these lenses will give you more DOF control than the kit lens) and you've got an excellent starter setup

ziggy53

Threads merged.

NeilL

Ciel-Rouge, you are strong on demands from gear, at the price you will pay, as we all are, but many of us here recognise the limitations and compromises inherent in photography tech. Our dreams and ideals are rougey, but the reality is a different colour, whichever you choose.

It is a very strong consensus here that tech, while important, is not in the general scheme of things as important as photography knowledge and skill. As well as the right upgrade of gear, you will possibly have to upgrade both of those.

In other words, some things come nicely rougey, for a price, while other things have to be made nice and rougey with great effort and a lot of experience.

It makes a difference too if you are the only one that needs to be pleased with your images, or if it's someone else, and that someone else is paying you for them. Many people here have spent a lot of money for the sake of customers.

Considering the situation which you describe you are in, my feeling is that you should get a new up-to-date body at the price level of the Canon in your list - Canon is rock solid at this level, and then the best lens, whether new or used, that you can afford, best as in image quality and versatility, perhaps a 50mm. Once again, at the price level you desire, Canon lenses are unbeaten. And then get to work to make sure you can get the best out of your gear.

If you're like most of us you will quickly discover that the limitations on your shots results will have more to do with your knowledge and skills than anything else. There is a lot of unavoidable "fiddling" involved along the way to getting rougey images!

Neil

Ciel_Rouge

Sure, I perfectly realize that I still have a long way to go skill-wise and that it is the skill and not gear that could eventually make me a real photographer. If I thought otherwise, even with decent gear I would still remain a snapshooter, only a very delusional one So time will tell. However, I tend to think that we over-compromise in life and as time progresses we force ourselves to accept increasingly inferior standards especially in products that are mass-produced.

NeilL

Ciel_Rouge wrote: »

Sure, I perfectly realize that I still have a long way to go skill-wise and that it is the skill and not gear that could eventually make me a real photographer. If I thought otherwise, even with decent gear I would still remain a snapshooter, only a very delusional one So time will tell. However, I tend to think that we over-compromise in life and as time progresses we force ourselves to accept increasingly inferior standards especially in products that are mass-produced.

The compromise you talk about is the very reason why the things you want to buy are available at all.

If stuff were to be developed to the perfection you demand it would be unavailable because companies couldn't function on that basis.

It is also compromise which makes photography valuable. The language which we use is not the product of a process of perfection in an ivory tower of ideals. Yet, it is valuable precisely because of the surprises it's imperfection can create. In other words, unique and wonderful things can be revealed through an imperfect dynamic system that would logically and necessarily be ruled out with a perfect single item.

So, thank compromise!

Neil

M38A1

If you really want to spend some time comparing models, this is a pretty good site for doing so....

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras



.

Ciel_Rouge

Good, thanks, I shall compare them tomorrow as it is rather late now in terms of my local European time But apart from pure parameter comparison, I would love to have some recommendations by people who own the models that I listed. Anyway, I am rather optimistic about having my camera in time for the next event.

NeilL

Ciel_Rouge wrote: »

Good, thanks, I shall compare them tomorrow as it is rather late now in terms of my local European time But apart from pure parameter comparison, I would love to have some recommendations by people who own the models that I listed. Anyway, I am rather optimistic about having my camera in time for the next event.

You will get plenty of recommendations for ALL the cameras you listed!D

Neil

idiotabroad

My first was D3000. It was a good first camera. Horrible noise but ps plug ins take care of most of it. I think it did well as a learning tool. Also visit www.kenrockwell.com he has nikon reviews that are brutal but honest.

Grainbelt

I'll throw in a plug for the Pentax K-r or (older) K-x. Built in image stabilization, great high-ISO, and cheap manual lenses if you want to get crafty. Plus the kit 18-55 (and 55-300 that come in some of the two-lens kits) is optically very good.

RockyOne

Great shots anyway
Good variety and magic pix.

Dirquist wrote: »

First off, Im propably not somebody that should be giving advice. Im pretty new in the world myself. Also, I have no clue about the S1600, but I just got a T3i fairly recently and it came with a 18-55mm and I purchased a 55-200mm lens for $199 new. I feel like I got the range pretty well covered. Sounds like you may want to go out further than that though. They had a 55-300 non IS lens for the same price but I wanted the IS more than the extra 100mm. That being said, I do get the feeling from reading your post (consider I dont know you though) that you might be more of a P&S kinda guy. I say that because when I got into this the changing of the lenses and the whole science of it is what I am interested in. You dont sound like you wanna be carrying around a big heavy camera that has a bag for other lenses like me. But like I said I dont know you and Im making a good deal of assumptions so please understand Im not telling you anything, just suggesting.

Good luck, its lots of fun.

EDIT: Thought Id ad an example of some blur I got with the cheap 55-200mm lens I bought. Remember, I had no clue at that point and so these are total amateur photos. Just making an example of the blur you can get and you can be a total dummy and still do it. Click to see full size.


Some Kind of Bird by pseudohippy, on Flickr


Jacob In Grass by pseudohippy, on Flickr


Jacob on Stomach in Grass 2 by pseudohippy, on Flickr

billythek

Ciel_Rouge wrote: »

since I am at a point in my life when I can actually afford making decisions based on quality and not price alone, I would like to make that informed decision and have adequate results shortly thereafter.

OK, so if that is really true, why are you limiting yourself to $500?

So here's my suggestion. Suck it up and get a 7D + 17-55 f/2.8. I'm sure there are some equivalent Nikon or Pentax packages, as well - I'm just not as familiar with those models.