I wasnt suggesting the pro ignore you advice, just saying it doesnt always apply. Plus just because you dont get paid for it doesnt mean you cant play with some nice toys! but realistically, pro level equipment tends to have too steep a learning curve, i remember the hell when the 5d2 came out and half the buyers rubbished it because they were dentists and had just stepped up from a p&s and the camera was utterly wasted on them.
Also, just because you dont go over 80 doesnt mean you cant have fun getting to 80
I'd agree with you, but at a budget of $700, I wouldn't even try to go dslr. I'm just looking for one of those dentists that rubbished his 5d2. I've needed one for years...:cry
Used 20d plus 50 1.8, zoom with legs There are serious advantages to going dslr over a bridge camera but on $700 you are looking at probably needing to go used or at least thats how i would do it unless i needed a feature like video. It is fairly borderline but there are some good deals out there to be had.
But would a non-pro who isn't aspiring to be pro see the difference between the Canon setup you described and a Panasonic LX3? And you get video with the LX3. If one is looking to step into the pro world, then I totally agree with you (and ironically am looking into the same Canon setup myself as a start into pro equipment).
If you can stretch your budget a little, I just picked up a Nikon D5000 with two lenses: 18-55mm and 55-200mm, new for $849. Seemed like a pretty good deal, with two very nice and capable lenses. I'm very pleased with the results.
Let me step in and be a bit of the devil's advocate here.
Given what you have said, and what you want to do, I don't necessarily think an SLR is the right choice for you.
The big advantage of ans SLR is its flexibility. Given an unlimited supply of money, you can shoot just about every possible subject at maximum quality (provided you have the skill, which you either do, or can get through applying yourself).
There are, however, a number of disadvantages to an SLR. The first is cost. You don't have unlimited money, you have around $700, which isn't going to get you very far with an SLR. It may get you a low end body, and a kit lens, but these won't be very flexible in application and won't produce the highest quality results- although a good photo is about more than the technicals, it's true.
A general tool will never be as good yt any one task as a dedicated tool. That's an unavoidable truth in photography. So, if you want to max out quality, you have to choose sports or your kid. They are different subjects with different technical challenges, requiring different tools. You won't be able to get anywhere near the panoply of tools required for all that with $700.
If I were you, I would go for the kid shots. People will still race motorcyles in 15 years, but your kid will be snarly, surly, and bepimpled, rather than small and cute. So act now.
Given $700 and one principal task, I think you are better of with something like a panasonic lumix than a DSLR. OR perhaps a Canon powershot. They take good photos (the lumix has leica glass, after all) and are a lot cheaper.
Here is the jam you will get yourself into if you go for the digital rebel or the cheap nikon. Imagine you get into this hobby, the first thing you will want to do is get rid of that clunky old piece of junk and step up to the next level of Nikon or Canon, because the entry level stuff just doesn't satisfy. Heck, I've been rolling with the XXD series for 5 years, and I am starting to think that even it is a little lightweight. You wil then realize that you flushed $700 down the toilet on a cheap camera body, when you could have flushed it down the toilet for something better, like software or an extra lens, or something actually useful and less anti-social, like an enormous pile of cocaine.
If you get yourself a quality self-contained ( I hate "point and shoot" because the new ones aren't) camera, you will be happy even if lyter you go out and buy a quality SLR. Why? Because SLR's weigh a ton. Even today, with my panoply of armaments like unto Achilles, yea verily my f64 bag, overstuffed with booty doth call the females unto me as the sirens did to storm-tossed Odysseus. What was I saying? Oh yeah, all that stuff weighs like 20 pounds. I wish I had something small for the days when I just don't feel like being a photo donkey.
Let me step in and be a bit of the devil's advocate here.
Here is the jam you will get yourself into if you go for the digital rebel or the cheap nikon. Imagine you get into this hobby, the first thing you will want to do is get rid of that clunky old piece of junk and step up to the next level of Nikon or Canon, because the entry level stuff just doesn't satisfy. Heck, I've been rolling with the XXD series for 5 years, and I am starting to think that even it is a little lightweight. Oh yeah, all that stuff weighs like 20 pounds. I wish I had something small for the days when I just don't feel like being a photo donkey.
I was with you up to the "clunky piece of junk". I have a few friends with Rebel plus standard kit lens who are very happy with their purchase and no intention of replacing it ever. They only have one lens but they have a bigger sensor and a better lens than the multipurpose jobs fixed to a good P&S - better than my G9, for example.
I agree when the photo bug bites you will embark on an expensive journey, but I surmise that the Rebel will be staying in the family in many cases.
One of my frustrations with DGrin is that as an amateur, I have to read that entry level cameras are junk. While they may not have the speed, control, or build quality of professional cameras, they are quite capable in their own right.
In this ~700 range, a Pentax K-x with 18-55 and 55-300 lenses is $628 right now at B&H. I can't see how any bridge camera (or entry SLR) can compete with the high-ISO clarity of that sensor and offer a stabilized 27-450mm equivalent range, let alone with the responsiveness of an SLR. I have the metal-mount version of both lenses, and the 55-300 is F4 until just over 100mm, making it a reasonable portrait lens wide open.
Granted, I'm one of maybe two Pentax users on this forum, but Pentax and Olympus both offer a lot to the amateur user that will never be buying 1000 dollar lenses. Pentax in particular is backwards compatible throughout its range, allowing simple, easy use of older lenses.
The concept that any photographer spending less than a grand limit themselves to a p&s or used professional camera is absurd.
One of my frustrations with DGrin is that as an amateur, I have to read that entry level cameras are junk. While they may not have the speed, control, or build quality of professional cameras, they are quite capable in their own right.
In this ~700 range, a Pentax K-x with 18-55 and 55-300 lenses is $628 right now at B&H. I can't see how any bridge camera (or entry SLR) can compete with the high-ISO clarity of that sensor and offer a stabilized 27-450mm equivalent range, let alone with the responsiveness of an SLR. I have the metal-mount version of both lenses, and the 55-300 is F4 until just over 100mm, making it a reasonable portrait lens wide open.
Granted, I'm one of maybe two Pentax users on this forum, but Pentax and Olympus both offer a lot to the amateur user that will never be buying 1000 dollar lenses. Pentax in particular is backwards compatible throughout its range, allowing simple, easy use of older lenses.
The concept that any photographer spending less than a grand limit themselves to a p&s or used professional camera is absurd.
Very good point! The non-Nikon/Canon cameras are quite capable and are highly under-appreciated. But this phrase in the original post made me think all-in-one:
Im a NON PRO and dont have any aspirations of being PRO.
I can’t get over how SamirD (I will acknowledge that a few others have suggested this as well but not so insistently) keeps insisting that the OP should only look at all-in-one. Why-O-why should not having pro aspirations keep anyone from wanting the features available in a DSLR???
Those that are saying that are also forgetting that the OP said the following at post #14: “To those suggesting I don’t go with a dslr I thank you for opening my eyes but I have wanted a good slr, now dslr since I was a little kid. Im gonna go that route regardless, I have a nice point and shoot already for running around with but now I want the big boy I can grow with.”
Also, the more serious sports shooting may well come later as his son gets to playing. That brings up one of the advantages of the DSLR — getting better, faster lenses for the same camera over time. Have any of you NOT gotten different lenses over time?
I can’t get over how SamirD (I will acknowledge that a few others have suggested this as well but not so insistently) keeps insisting that the OP should only look at all-in-one. Why-O-why should not having pro aspirations keep anyone from wanting the features available in a DSLR???
Because people that don't want to try to learn the craft don't really need the power of a dslr and will find it cumbersome or inconvenient. The prosumer cameras that have similar features for less can be quite adequate for users that fall in this category. Now, that being said...
Those that are saying that are also forgetting that the OP said the following at post #14: “To those suggesting I don’t go with a dslr I thank you for opening my eyes but I have wanted a good slr, now dslr since I was a little kid. Im gonna go that route regardless, I have a nice point and shoot already for running around with but now I want the big boy I can grow with.”
...I somehow missed this post. So with the information now at hand, my recommendation is to go with the dslr body that feels good to your hands and seems intuitive. And don't discount older bodies that can be found for much less, allowing you to spend money where it counts--on the lens. For most everything except any sports shooting that would require a zoom, the kit lenses should be adequate. Although, I'd just get the body and pick your own lens. Good luck, and let us know what you ultimately get.
Not a pro at all but as a mom with very fast and furious kids I appreciate the faster shutter speed on a dslr than my previous canon superzoom. I'm 18 months into the whole dslr thing and now have my eyes on the t1i due to the higher ISO and playing with the video.
I started this thread many many moons ago. I didnt get my camera as soon as I wanted but I did get it. Ended up with a T3i. Im not disappointed at all with my decision. I just wanted to put a capper on the thread. Possibly someone wanted to see how it all worked out since so many of you contributed to it passionately
So here I share the results. Feel free to Comment but I am aware that my results so far are very amateur. Still I am more than happy! Thanks so much everyone for all the help :ivar
What a great set of shots, #3, 7 & 8 are awesome - gotta shoot as many as you can as they really don't stay small n cute for long
At least your sorted and your happy - I don't need to rock the boat by suggesting the Sony Alpha range
.DAVID.
Your a very funny man David lol But yeah-
Thanks so much for the kind words. Im gonna listen to what everyone tells me and take photos like a mad man. I have taken over a thousand already in just a few weeks and I had a nice point and shoot before that also made decent pics.
Im just finding my way with the camera. I dont have as much time as I would like to dive into this hobby but at the same time I enjoy having a hobby with so much to learn and so many different directions to take it. It will take me years to even develop any real skills. The fact is that it doesnt matter because Im having so much fun hunting for photos. I feel completely satisfied right now, except for some fancy glass hehe.
The Rebel T-series pack a lot of bang for buck. And they're also quite capable just in fully auto. Glad to hear you found something you like.
Thanks SamirD. I want you to know I appreciated all your posts on the subject. They were passionate and informed. I took them to heart and I actually held off a lot longer thinking of your comments. The only thing I took slight umbrage to was when you said people that dont want to learn the craft dont need such a powerful camera. I never did say I didnt want to learn the craft, I very much do, I just dont want to be pro. I dont want that as my business. It seems very stressful.
I have tons of respect for most of the pro photographers although Ive already taken a bit of crap from some snobby photographers that almost seem upset that so many folks have expensive cameras. A fella just two days ago felt it neccesary to tell me that just because I have a nice camera Im not a photographer, Im just a guy with a fancy overpriced camera lol. He was dead serious though I didnt say anything, but the thought "no kidding Sherlock" did cross my mind. Anyhow, I want to learn both the art and science of photography, but in no way do I want to be pro, just have pro type results.
Thanks for all the kind words Richy. We were actually in the camera shop and he had a really nice camera with him. Im sure he was just a guy who had many years of experience, lots of natural talent and tons of education and perhaps he is sick of all the newbs who think they are good photographers and he took it out on someone that truly has no illusions to my talent or knowledge. But you say it exactly, photography is the perfect hobby for me, my motorcycle hobby took a back seat now that I have a son. Im 36, own a home and just had my first kid, so Im pretty settled and comfortable. I just wanted a hobby that I could share with the family that will also capture our time together for many years to come. I can grow into it and never really know it all and grow out of it. It gets me outdoors more and helps me enjoy and see all the little things our planet has to offer. Its a wonderful hobby, and just because its a hobby doesnt mean you dont want to learn and do great at it, its the opposite in fact. This place has taught me so much, along with a free photography course I found online. Its almost ridiculous how much their is to learn.
I hadnt thought of it much but this is true. People that are not properly educated and experienced should not go out and try to be portrait or wedding photographers. I didnt realize that was an issue. Im a real estate appraiser and we are now licensed for similar reasons. Just because you can use a computer and punch numbers into zillow or whatever doesnt mean you know real estate the way I do after twelve years of experience and all of my education, so I totally get where these pro photographers are probably coming from.
Thanks SamirD. I want you to know I appreciated all your posts on the subject. They were passionate and informed. I took them to heart and I actually held off a lot longer thinking of your comments. The only thing I took slight umbrage to was when you said people that dont want to learn the craft dont need such a powerful camera. I never did say I didnt want to learn the craft, I very much do, I just dont want to be pro. I dont want that as my business. It seems very stressful.
I didn't mean to offend you. I'm glad you explained your position. It's different than what I thought. I run into people all the time that want to 'take good pictures' and ask me 'what dslr camera should I buy'. My first question to them is what they plan to use the camera for. Over 90% just want to shoot and not worry about learning the craft. I had incorrectly thrown you into this category. My most sincerest apologies, as you definitely deserve to be in the dslr world.
The good thing is that because you don't want to go pro, but just want the picture quality, you don't need the industrial strength of the more expensive gear, just the quality. And the Rebel series was created just for this. I remember when the 2nd generation Rebels came out and had the same sensors as the D series. Pros bought them as backup cameras since the shots were just as high quality as their main D series cameras. They knew they couldn't stand up to the regular use of their main equipment, but they knew that the quality was the same. I think the t3i is about as nice as you can get without going full frame, and should last you for many, many years.
I have tons of respect for most of the pro photographers although Ive already taken a bit of crap from some snobby photographers that almost seem upset that so many folks have expensive cameras. A fella just two days ago felt it neccesary to tell me that just because I have a nice camera Im not a photographer, Im just a guy with a fancy overpriced camera lol. He was dead serious though I didnt say anything, but the thought "no kidding Sherlock" did cross my mind. Anyhow, I want to learn both the art and science of photography, but in no way do I want to be pro, just have pro type results.
The problem is that there's so many people out there that are buying the crap that crappy photographers are creating that the pros now have to compete on price. And it definitely leaves a sore spot for the pros. The amateurs quickly find out how the expenses when they try to go into photography as a business. Many don't make it and end up selling their extra gear they bought for their 'business'.
I've met the same attitudes, but once I start talking the talk with them, they realize that I know as much as they do, and sometimes more. That changes their attitude really quickly.
The funny thing is that as I've become a pro, I'm sore too. I'm envious at all these people I see at the same events I'm at with a camera that's better than mine that can't even shoot as well as I can. It's like being an f1 driver shuttling people to the race track in a taxi to drive my car. It drives me nuts. What I could do with that equipment! But I try to keep this attitude at bay. It doesn't help me one bit to get upset.
And when I meet someone that has equipment and no idea how to use it, I help them. One, so that I can play with real equipment, and two, so they may get interested in learning how to use the tool in their hands on more than fully auto.
I think the one thing you really can't teach or learn is framing and composition. This is where the art is created. You can either see the photo or you can't. It's why the art schools still turn out the best photographers. If you start with talent and give it an artistic education, it's a killer combo. I see photos all the time that 'feel' off, and it's the framing and composition. I realize I have talent for it, but I have no idea how good I truly am. People still like my images even though the image quality isn't the best, so it must be the framing and composition.
I hadnt thought of it much but this is true. People that are not properly educated and experienced should not go out and try to be portrait or wedding photographers. I didnt realize that was an issue. Im a real estate appraiser and we are now licensed for similar reasons. Just because you can use a computer and punch numbers into zillow or whatever doesnt mean you know real estate the way I do after twelve years of experience and all of my education, so I totally get where these pro photographers are probably coming from.
Ethan
It's not so much the people becoming photographers, but people paying them to be photographers. Pure supply and demand. If there was a demand for unlicensed, unprofessional real estate appraisers, I bet they would start popping up everywhere and charging a fraction of what you do. So then you will be forced to compete with them, and probably be a bit sore about it too.
Comments
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
I actually could care less about the dentist.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Given what you have said, and what you want to do, I don't necessarily think an SLR is the right choice for you.
The big advantage of ans SLR is its flexibility. Given an unlimited supply of money, you can shoot just about every possible subject at maximum quality (provided you have the skill, which you either do, or can get through applying yourself).
There are, however, a number of disadvantages to an SLR. The first is cost. You don't have unlimited money, you have around $700, which isn't going to get you very far with an SLR. It may get you a low end body, and a kit lens, but these won't be very flexible in application and won't produce the highest quality results- although a good photo is about more than the technicals, it's true.
A general tool will never be as good yt any one task as a dedicated tool. That's an unavoidable truth in photography. So, if you want to max out quality, you have to choose sports or your kid. They are different subjects with different technical challenges, requiring different tools. You won't be able to get anywhere near the panoply of tools required for all that with $700.
If I were you, I would go for the kid shots. People will still race motorcyles in 15 years, but your kid will be snarly, surly, and bepimpled, rather than small and cute. So act now.
Given $700 and one principal task, I think you are better of with something like a panasonic lumix than a DSLR. OR perhaps a Canon powershot. They take good photos (the lumix has leica glass, after all) and are a lot cheaper.
Here is the jam you will get yourself into if you go for the digital rebel or the cheap nikon. Imagine you get into this hobby, the first thing you will want to do is get rid of that clunky old piece of junk and step up to the next level of Nikon or Canon, because the entry level stuff just doesn't satisfy. Heck, I've been rolling with the XXD series for 5 years, and I am starting to think that even it is a little lightweight. You wil then realize that you flushed $700 down the toilet on a cheap camera body, when you could have flushed it down the toilet for something better, like software or an extra lens, or something actually useful and less anti-social, like an enormous pile of cocaine.
If you get yourself a quality self-contained ( I hate "point and shoot" because the new ones aren't) camera, you will be happy even if lyter you go out and buy a quality SLR. Why? Because SLR's weigh a ton. Even today, with my panoply of armaments like unto Achilles, yea verily my f64 bag, overstuffed with booty doth call the females unto me as the sirens did to storm-tossed Odysseus. What was I saying? Oh yeah, all that stuff weighs like 20 pounds. I wish I had something small for the days when I just don't feel like being a photo donkey.
I was with you up to the "clunky piece of junk". I have a few friends with Rebel plus standard kit lens who are very happy with their purchase and no intention of replacing it ever. They only have one lens but they have a bigger sensor and a better lens than the multipurpose jobs fixed to a good P&S - better than my G9, for example.
I agree when the photo bug bites you will embark on an expensive journey, but I surmise that the Rebel will be staying in the family in many cases.
In this ~700 range, a Pentax K-x with 18-55 and 55-300 lenses is $628 right now at B&H. I can't see how any bridge camera (or entry SLR) can compete with the high-ISO clarity of that sensor and offer a stabilized 27-450mm equivalent range, let alone with the responsiveness of an SLR. I have the metal-mount version of both lenses, and the 55-300 is F4 until just over 100mm, making it a reasonable portrait lens wide open.
Granted, I'm one of maybe two Pentax users on this forum, but Pentax and Olympus both offer a lot to the amateur user that will never be buying 1000 dollar lenses. Pentax in particular is backwards compatible throughout its range, allowing simple, easy use of older lenses.
The concept that any photographer spending less than a grand limit themselves to a p&s or used professional camera is absurd.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Those that are saying that are also forgetting that the OP said the following at post #14: “To those suggesting I don’t go with a dslr I thank you for opening my eyes but I have wanted a good slr, now dslr since I was a little kid. Im gonna go that route regardless, I have a nice point and shoot already for running around with but now I want the big boy I can grow with.”
Also, the more serious sports shooting may well come later as his son gets to playing. That brings up one of the advantages of the DSLR — getting better, faster lenses for the same camera over time. Have any of you NOT gotten different lenses over time?
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
So here I share the results. Feel free to Comment but I am aware that my results so far are very amateur. Still I am more than happy! Thanks so much everyone for all the help :ivar
1
IMG_2069 copy by pseudohippy, on Flickr
2
IMG_2128 copy by pseudohippy, on Flickr
3
IMG_1593 by pseudohippy, on Flickr
4
IMG_1720 by pseudohippy, on Flickr
5
IMG_1705 by pseudohippy, on Flickr
6
IMG_1659 by pseudohippy, on Flickr
7
IMG_1590 by pseudohippy, on Flickr
8
IMG_1585 by pseudohippy, on Flickr
9
IMG_2091 copy by pseudohippy, on Flickr
10
IMG_2088 by pseudohippy, on Flickr
11
Jacob in Bumbo Gimp Shaded DS by pseudohippy, on Flickr
At least your sorted and your happy - I don't need to rock the boat by suggesting the Sony Alpha range
.DAVID.
Take nothing but pictures. Leave nothing but footprints
Your a very funny man David lol
Thanks so much for the kind words. Im gonna listen to what everyone tells me and take photos like a mad man. I have taken over a thousand already in just a few weeks and I had a nice point and shoot before that also made decent pics.
Im just finding my way with the camera. I dont have as much time as I would like to dive into this hobby but at the same time I enjoy having a hobby with so much to learn and so many different directions to take it. It will take me years to even develop any real skills. The fact is that it doesnt matter because Im having so much fun hunting for photos. I feel completely satisfied right now, except for some fancy glass hehe.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Thanks SamirD. I want you to know I appreciated all your posts on the subject. They were passionate and informed. I took them to heart and I actually held off a lot longer thinking of your comments. The only thing I took slight umbrage to was when you said people that dont want to learn the craft dont need such a powerful camera. I never did say I didnt want to learn the craft, I very much do, I just dont want to be pro. I dont want that as my business. It seems very stressful.
I have tons of respect for most of the pro photographers although Ive already taken a bit of crap from some snobby photographers that almost seem upset that so many folks have expensive cameras. A fella just two days ago felt it neccesary to tell me that just because I have a nice camera Im not a photographer, Im just a guy with a fancy overpriced camera lol. He was dead serious though
I hadnt thought of it much but this is true. People that are not properly educated and experienced should not go out and try to be portrait or wedding photographers. I didnt realize that was an issue. Im a real estate appraiser and we are now licensed for similar reasons. Just because you can use a computer and punch numbers into zillow or whatever doesnt mean you know real estate the way I do after twelve years of experience and all of my education, so I totally get where these pro photographers are probably coming from.
Ethan
The good thing is that because you don't want to go pro, but just want the picture quality, you don't need the industrial strength of the more expensive gear, just the quality. And the Rebel series was created just for this. I remember when the 2nd generation Rebels came out and had the same sensors as the D series. Pros bought them as backup cameras since the shots were just as high quality as their main D series cameras. They knew they couldn't stand up to the regular use of their main equipment, but they knew that the quality was the same. I think the t3i is about as nice as you can get without going full frame, and should last you for many, many years.
I've met the same attitudes, but once I start talking the talk with them, they realize that I know as much as they do, and sometimes more. That changes their attitude really quickly.
The funny thing is that as I've become a pro, I'm sore too. I'm envious at all these people I see at the same events I'm at with a camera that's better than mine that can't even shoot as well as I can. It's like being an f1 driver shuttling people to the race track in a taxi to drive my car. It drives me nuts. What I could do with that equipment! But I try to keep this attitude at bay. It doesn't help me one bit to get upset.
And when I meet someone that has equipment and no idea how to use it, I help them. One, so that I can play with real equipment, and two, so they may get interested in learning how to use the tool in their hands on more than fully auto.
I think the one thing you really can't teach or learn is framing and composition. This is where the art is created. You can either see the photo or you can't. It's why the art schools still turn out the best photographers. If you start with talent and give it an artistic education, it's a killer combo. I see photos all the time that 'feel' off, and it's the framing and composition. I realize I have talent for it, but I have no idea how good I truly am. People still like my images even though the image quality isn't the best, so it must be the framing and composition.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!