SLR questions

[newfie 0]

Im planning on buying an SLR around june. Just looking for some opinions on what I should get. Im very interested in macro, still life and landscape photography. It needs to be as cost effective as possible. so any opinions on what body and lenses would be good to begin with. sorry for starting a different slr thread, but I didnt want to take away from the other topics. thanks

[Graham 0]

Your first decision should be your budget, and primary use of your first lens. I bought a 105 macro lens with my SLR and started with that. But I soon wanted a wider angle lens. Then a telephoto...

 

I think the Nikon D40 is a great first SLR camera. I'm sure there are many others.

[little laker 0]

A lot can change between now and June.

 

Both Pentax and Canon are rumored to be announcing new models this month, and there's a good chance that more will be announced by someone before then as well.

 

I won't get into the brand thing at the moment, and probably won't mention any unless I think that your missing something.

 

But why not do a little research into what lenses you'll want to get between now and then.

 

After you figure out what lenses you want base the camera bodies decision on that.

If your on a limited budget and just starting out please take into account that some DSLR's allow you to use OLD lenses, while others require you to buy their newer glass.

OLD lenses usually cost considerably less, and the quality often exceeds modern lenses.

 

In my opinion lenses make more of a difference than the camera bodies.

[Wulff 0]

What they said.

 

1) budget. decide on your budget

2) Try to anticipate what "style" of photography most interest you. By doing so you can try to identify one or two good lenses ( to choose 1 from) that suits that style as your first good lens. As graham noted for him he wanted a good macro lens to start. I knew I wanted to do wildlife photography and so bought one of the better telephoto avaailable ( 400 L ) and then made do with a kit lens as my only other lens until I could afford to slowly build up the rest of my lenses ( im still building). Good lenses arent cheap and in many cases are more expensive than the bodies but they can last a lifetime unlike the body, and make a noticeable difference in image quality

3) Try to determine if one maker offers something the other doesnt that is of importance to you.

[newfie 0]

thanks so far guys. Your right, lots can change between now and june. What your saying about some DSLR's allowing you to use older lenses sounds like something im definetly going to check out. I havent decided a budget yet because i havent really looked at prices yet. keep the suggestions coming, and thanks again.

[Peterjay 0]

You've got plenty of time to do your research - reading user reviews at places like B&H is a good place to start - resellerratings.com is a good place to find out which dealers are reputable and which aren't. (you'd be surprised how many aren't) You can probably find a buyers' guide in the magazine sections of your local stores that will give you an idea of what's available. I'd stay away from used gear unless you have someone with a lot of experience who can check it out for you. Warranty issues aside, there's a lot more junk on the used market than there are gems. And don't waste time worrying about what new models may or may not be coming out in the future. Nobody except the manufacturers have that information, and they never share it ahead of time. The rumors you find on the internet are pure BS. And (as if you don't already have enough to think about) don't forget that it's much more important to keep working on developing your skills than it is to buy new gear. A good photographer with a $100 P&S will produce better picures than a bad photographer with an $8,000 Canon.

[newfie 0]

Part of the reason im waiting until june is to work on my skills, i dont want to buy a DSLR and end up taking horrible shakey pictures. I was definetly going to stay away from used gear as much as possible. thanks again

[little laker 0]

Don't worry about toning your skills so much, if your taking a decent looking picture with a P&S at the moment it can only get better with a SLR.

To say the least it's alright to use a tripod when shooting with an SLR.

 

What Peterjay said about reputable dealers is so true.

Before you buy ANYTHING on-line please confirm it with us that the company is a good one.

Even the body, there are several shabby gray market companies out there where you rarely get what you originally ordered.

 

There are a few used companies where they're honest about what your buying.

And I'd never hesitate buying anything from them.

[Tangler 0]

As Stu has hinted, probably one of the most important pieces of equipment you get for the type of photography you seem to be interested in is a good tripod. Don't waste your money on a cheap little one. Get something big. After that, as others have said, it is the lenses that count most. Get lenses from the companies that make the cameras. I generally use a 105 macro and a 24 mm wide angle. Sometimes I use a 50 mm and sometimes my 80-200 zoom. As for the body, it depends what you want to do with your images. I might piss a few people off here (or just plain show my ignorance), but IMHO if you want to produce beautiful large(ish) prints you still can't beat a good film (I'm ducking rapidly here). Maybe the new 20MP camera's will change that... If you are going to be content with smaller prints or posting on the net then digital should suffice.

Tangler

[Wulff 0]

Tangler you can get more than good prints from digitial now. I routinely print 8x11s that I dont really try to optimise and thats after cropping. An 8MP file cropped 50% is pushing the limits but Ive done it. A full file is more than enough for cover shots and I doubt it would be difficult for a 2 page spread

 

While I havent printed much larger yet, I have seen plenty of my friends images (8mp bodies) printed to posters and they are beuatiful. I dont see any practical reason to want to print larger than that. There probably isnt a pro sports or wildlife photographer who isnt shooting digital these days and Im sure their editors are pretty demanding.

[Peterjay 0]

Yeah John, you can add film photojournalism to the extinction list as well - that's a field that's long gone. My wife surprised me on my birthday last year with a couple of 11X14 prints that she'd had made from ice abstracts that I'd shot with a 5.1MP Nikon digicam. She'd been telling me right along that they'd print beautifully, but I didn't believe her. (She was the art director at a major newspaper at the time, and had been working with digital for years) I was absolutely floored by the IQ. Stunned! I'd been a holdout up until then, but it was like the clouds parting and God shouting down orders to get off my butt and get busy. What's really funny is that she sold one of each to the managing editor before she'd even gotten them home. First time I ever sold prints that I hadn't even known existed. People can yak all they want about that phantom "extra something" that film has, but I can't see it, and I'm a bear when it comes to print quality. The only area where film still has an edge is large format, and even those guys have mostly bought scanners and given up the darkroom. Anybody who's ever smelled a color darkroom can understand that.

[Graham 0]

The new Nikon D3 official product shots were taken with a digital Hasselblad with a Phase1 digital back. 39mp digital, expensive, but it's likely the best system available for any size print. But useless for action and wildlife.

I print 8x10 and 12x18 and they look great. My monitor is callibrated and ICC profiled for my printer. I'm very satisfied with prints from my 10mp camera.

[little laker 0]

I'll be leaving on a trip on Sunday, and the first camera I've packed is a Mamiya 645, filled with B&W film

 

Although I'll be using my DSLR for the colour shots, and panoramics.

[Peterjay 0]

Yeah, Graham, those Hasselblads are mean machines, but they're not designed for rugged outdoorsmen like ourselves. Michael Reichmann uses them on his expeditions for landscape work, but he usually brings a Canon and a Leica for the shoot-from-the-hip stuff. I know a wedding photographer in NY who has a couple of them, but she gets $20,000 per gig, so she can afford the luxury. Still, I'd love to see what one of those babies can do. (Imagine dealing with those files - gotta be enormous)

[troutgeek 0]

The new Nikon D3 official product shots were taken with a digital Hasselblad with a Phase1 digital back. 39mp digital, expensive, but it's likely the best system available for any size print. But useless for action and wildlife.

I print 8x10 and 12x18 and they look great. My monitor is callibrated and ICC profiled for my printer. I'm very satisfied with prints from my 10mp camera.

 

Aha! Why would Nikon use a Hasselblad to shoot the official product shots? Why would they not use a Nikon?