ADVICE On Picking a Camera PLEASE
Fallenlife2000
Registered Users Posts: 1 Beginner grinner
I've been looking into buying a SLR digital Camera and I am very excited about it.:barb I would like to get into photography as a profession, but its also just a hobby. I need something to get me started (and maybe a little more than that) and something that will last me a while and serve its purpose. These are the ones Ive been looking at...
OLYMPUS EVOLT E500 (pkged w/ 2 lenses: 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 & 40-155mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko Lenses)
OLYMPUS EVOLT E510
NIKON D40
NIKON D40X
and finally (although, I'm starting to lean away from this one...)
CANON REBEL XTi
The Rebel XTi Ive seen some poor reviews on.
Most of the photography I do presently is Concert photography (mostly in smaller venues) and I like to try portrait work, landscape etc. Low light is important to me as well. In my research it seems like Nikons are great with low light.
There are just soo many cameras out there that look great and sound great that makes the decision very hard. My neighbor has the Olympus 500 and he loves it, and I agree it has some nice features, I am leary of that brand however, so I wonder what others opinions are. For some reason I feel content with the idea of buying a Nikon. The cost of the olypus seems awesome though, especially including two lenses as I am most definately requiring myself to have a telephoto lens in addition immediately.
I heard that the nikons dont have a focus motor, i assume this means the auto focus is in the lenses themselves...is this a bad thing?
AND I am hoping that the camera I select is user friendly, and not too complicated.
I was also wondering what everyone thinks about image stabilizers (preventing shaky pics)...I fear its something to worry about going wrong, if it takes away from movement in a photo etc. But it also sounds like a wonderful thing, because I dont have perfectly still hands and it does affect my photographs sometimes.
If anyone can help me Id appreciate it very much so!
~Bernadette
OLYMPUS EVOLT E500 (pkged w/ 2 lenses: 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 & 40-155mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko Lenses)
OLYMPUS EVOLT E510
NIKON D40
NIKON D40X
and finally (although, I'm starting to lean away from this one...)
CANON REBEL XTi
The Rebel XTi Ive seen some poor reviews on.
Most of the photography I do presently is Concert photography (mostly in smaller venues) and I like to try portrait work, landscape etc. Low light is important to me as well. In my research it seems like Nikons are great with low light.
There are just soo many cameras out there that look great and sound great that makes the decision very hard. My neighbor has the Olympus 500 and he loves it, and I agree it has some nice features, I am leary of that brand however, so I wonder what others opinions are. For some reason I feel content with the idea of buying a Nikon. The cost of the olypus seems awesome though, especially including two lenses as I am most definately requiring myself to have a telephoto lens in addition immediately.
I heard that the nikons dont have a focus motor, i assume this means the auto focus is in the lenses themselves...is this a bad thing?
AND I am hoping that the camera I select is user friendly, and not too complicated.
I was also wondering what everyone thinks about image stabilizers (preventing shaky pics)...I fear its something to worry about going wrong, if it takes away from movement in a photo etc. But it also sounds like a wonderful thing, because I dont have perfectly still hands and it does affect my photographs sometimes.
If anyone can help me Id appreciate it very much so!
~Bernadette
0
Comments
Hope this helps...
IS is great. However, most dSLR put the the IS in the lens ($$$) and not in the body (other than Sony). I don't believe that Canon or Nikon has IS built into the bodies.
In general, the menu's on a dSLR are similar and the exposure settings are the same (the buttons/dials will be in a different place). It's just a matter of what feels good in your hands. You also have to ask yourself, what lens setup you'll want one, two, five, and ten years from now. Also, you need to figure out what you want to shoot (help defines lens choices).
Read the forums, reviews on-line (many, many, many sites), and if possible, go to a store and physically feel the camera.
I would go through the lens line up at each company and start your wish list from there... For a concert, I would start with something like 50mm f/1.4 and maybe the same for portraits. I generally like wide-angles for landscapes or a general walk around lens.
For me the most important thing is that the camera feels right for me. I want a camera that I can use and not think about. Any of the cameras out there will give you good results.
I was the official photographer at a banquet on Friday and did around 700 shots in very low light. I was shooting with a Nikon D2X and a D200 who are not supposed to do well in those conditions. My shots came out fine even at the higher ISOs when I nailed the exposure. None of the lenses I used had VR (Nikon's IS) but I used a monopod and got a very high keeper rate.
What you have to decide are questions like "will I want to get a more advanced camera body in the future", "what lenses do I need and what will I want in the future", "how much am I willing to spend". Your answers to these and other questions will lead you to right brand.
Most important is to lay your hands on the possibilities and see which of the candidates feels right to you.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
For low-light shooting, the most important thing to remember is that it's not so much which camera brand/sensor technology you are shooting with. What's important is nailing the exposure. When you nail the exposure, a lot of the high-ISO noise will simply disappear (except in the deep shadows).
Let me preface the following with a statement; "I'm a Canon shooter and don't know much about the Nikon features."
As you are looking to get into pro shooting, rather than an XTi, I would think you might be better off looking at getting a good used 20D/30D. I used to shoot with the original Canon dRebel (300D) and know that the difference between the 300D/350D/400D cameras and the 20D/30D bodies is significant. With the release of the 40D, the prices of the 20D and 30D have dropped significantly and the number of used bodies on the various for-sale sites has increased.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Interestingly - as I was deciding on a camera, so too were my two brothers. We looked together. I got Olympus, one got Canon, and the other Nikon (guess we all had to be different). We are all extremely satisfied. All those cameras are great. You won't go wrong with any of them. Just get what feels good to you and don't look back. You just need a tool you like using, and all of those cameras will do a wonderful job.
Just a side note:
In terms of in camera IS - the new E-510 has it.
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
Do lots more research. If your primary concern is concerts, lenses are likewise important and will be an important component of your budget.
It seems you are concentrating on only entry level cameras, which may not have the feature set key to success in concert photography. My recommendations are:
Low light, high-ISO performance.
Autofocus speed and accuracy in low light.
Spot metering.
In lenses look for:
Focal length based upon your position relative to the stage and entertainers, and your need to isolate portions thereof.
Fast apertures.
Rapid autofocus, in combination with the camera.
Flare resistance.
Satisfy the requirements of the venue for the best results.
FWIW, Andy did a splendid job with Sting and Joss Stone:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=11413
Portraits can be head shots, head and shoulders, 3/4 length and full length, as well as seated. Key to good portraiture is control over lighting, background selection and the ability to throw the background out of focus as necessary, lens focal lengths based upon angle of view required as well as distance to subject, bokeh, depth of field, color and contrast of the lenses, etc.
Landscapes can be scenic or vista, and again, lens selection is critical depending upon the intended effect and the subject matter.
Choose your equipment carefully, but choose it based on your needs.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Canon and Nikon have their VR/IS built into the lenses. According to them, they get better results on the lens as it specific to that lens whereas if it's built into the camera, the effects are not as great. It is very good for low light situations.
If you get the Nikon lenses with VR or the better lenses with AF, the non focusing of the D40 becomes a non issues. If you look at the D40/D40x, I would get the D40 or skip over to the D80. The D40x adds some more megapixels, but unless you make posters, that's a non issue.
Any of the cameras you list will do fine. i can only speak of the Nikons, so I am biased for them. When you get into the DSLR world, there is a bigger world of support and accesseries to consider and Canon and Nikon are tops in that area.
The moral of the story: If it's a hobby, get the cheapest body you can and get the best lens you can afford. Better glass will upgrade the camera.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but I wouldn't trust it. Canon is known for it's high-ISO edge. My experience with Nikon has been high-ISO sucks. Though, I've been seeing some stuff that agrees with Harry's comments--if you can nail exposure perfectly you whould be mostly ok. Canon gives more leeway. Ofcourse the new D3 and D300 apparently change that situation significantly.
For AF motors, Nikon has been mostly in-body. Canon is in-lens for the EOS system. I'm not terribl familiar with the Nikon line any more so I don't know how prevalent the in-lens AF motor system is now. However, you have two different systems to keep track of with varying compatibility levels to worry about. Not something I'd want ot worry about as a newbie personally.
Like ziggy says, it appears you are concentrating on entry-level cameras. Which is fine for hobbyist use. If you want to go pro that's not a good move. Particularly for low-light shooting--it's very demanding. I am cosntantly pushing the edge of the 20D's performance envelope & my test run with a 1D shows the significant advantage the pro-level body has. I cannot imagine my frustration level trying the same shoots with a Rebel.
With all that said, the lenses are most important. Canon has an excellent selection of lenses for the stated purposes. I expect Nikon should as well, theough again I'm not terribly familiar with them any more. I'm not so sure about Olympus or any other bit players.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
I would avoid the D40/D40x line, as they do not have body focusing motors and can only use the newest glass (as previously stated). There are great deals on used glass out there, especially large-aperture glass such as 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and the older 80-200 f2.8 zooms which would be great in the darkness, and a good deal on a functional used lens can quickly offset the savings offered by the D40 series over the D80 or even D200/D300.
Low-light auto-focusing in the D40/D80/D200 series is marginal in my opinion with the lack of cross-sensors compared to the D2 series (or newer).
All that said, given the model-range you've indicated I'm not really familiar with the Rebel xti and how its performance compares with Nikon's. I'm more familiar through friends with the EOS 1D Mk II and III, and to some extent the 20d-40d ranges and their performance.
Member SportsShooter.com
My Galleries
These were taken with the Canon 50 f/1.8 @ ISO1600 @ 1/100 or 1/60s on a 5D. They are of part of a series I did for the band Oswald and the Herringbones. I think the WB was either sun or custom 5000K, but I did no PP. The only lights are 4 stage spots stage right about 6 feet off the stage. Hopefully they give you an idea of the compromises needed for low light, non-flash photography.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Go here for more from this shoot.
-Fleetwood Mac
As said above and before, first thing you should do is go to a camera store and hold the camera in your hands.
What are your preferences for a camera? light or sturdy? How much are you willing to spend?
www.tednghiem.com
To a large degree, the first camera you use will end up defining what feels right to you. I bought a Canon T90 in 1986, and I have been shooting Canon ever since because that is what I am used to.
For low light shooting, there are three things you need to look for in a body: a good viewfinder, good auto focus and resonable quality at high ISO. Beyond that, I think the most important property of a camera system is the lenses that are available. In particular, look for a good stable of fast primes. A fast 50 and a fast 85 are going to be meat and potatoes lenses for small venue concert shooting and will serve you well for portraits as well.
Sony kept the Minolta mount so you have a choice of over 16 million lenses dating back to the early 80s which would allow you to buy some very good glass at very cheap prices. I have seen and heard very good low-light reviews for this camera. I have the a100 because I had Minolta gear and will be upgrading to the a700 after the holidays. I know that Canon and Nikon are the cameras that are mentioned the most, but you should really check out the a700. Just a suggestion and good luck
http://ergphoto.smugmug.com
if you like portrait work and low light work, you should go with nikon or canon. they both have a selection of great prime lenses.
you should definitely check the a700 out, but if you want any low light shooting, a better bet is an xti or d40. or, looking at the same price range as the 'alpha 700', you should look at the D200 or the 30D, both of which have great performance for their price range, and overall, im sure, are a much better purchase than the a700.
just my 2000 cents.
As others have said, the most important aspect of a camera is how it feels and how comfortably you can use it. Spend some quality time at a camera store where you can get used to the different bodies and lenses, and don't buy anything that first day.
I own the E-510, which is the only camera on your list with built-in image stabilization. The IS system is very effective, and certainly lets me get photos that I wouldn't otherwise be able to take. It doesn't affect your subjects movement; you may be able to hold the camera still at shutter speeds too low to stop motion. (That's not generally a good thing...)
While the E-510's two-lens kit includes the 40-150 telephoto, you'll probably want to upgrade eventually, especially once you start to make money from your photography. There's nothing bad about the lens, but like all kit lenses, it's slow at full telephoto (f/5.6). Buying lenses is what turns a "camera" into a "system" and is where the real cost lies.
For people shots, I find I start wanting IS at focal lengths longer than 135mm. My 135/2 is great; I almost never wish for IS when I am using it. However, when I am shooting with the 200/2.8 I find myself wanting IS fairly often.