Community Newsletter: Q&A forum: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras

I started with the first digital SLR ever made for consumer use, the Olympus C2500L. Nice little camera, but only 2.5 megapixels and a fixed lens, but a true SLR. It does great macro work, on the positive side. I went with point and shoot for a while, and recently purchased a new digital SLR... the real thing with changeable lenses, this time.

I have been very impressed with this camera and with it's instructional GUI, even my wife seems to use it very easily. It has the same APS-C image sensor as the Nikon, and in my opinion, you can only make so many fleas stand on the head of a pin. The maximum reasonable number of megapixels falls somewhere between 6 and 8 for the APS-C image sensors, so you don't sacrifice very much by not getting the wowzer 8 or 10 megapixel super camera... unless you wish to make poster sized blowups of your output. I wanted to go with Olympus, as both of my previous cameras were of that make. The xD memory cards seem to have a speed problem, and the 4x3 image sensor is somewhat smaller than the one on the camera I chose. This is one place where bigger is better, but the offerings right now aren't as big as I would like, so I settled for one of the bigger in the lot.

There is little to remember about shooting with my new purchase, as this camera explains most of the choices you can make, either when you access the various shooting modes, or run through the expanded modes. Neat stuff if you are trying to learn a little about the camera, on your first few shots. I'm not quite as instinctive with it as my old Minolta X700, but I'll get there, soon.

My main issues were batteries... I wanted to use AA lithium cells for convenience of access,when batteries go dead and I can't use a charger. Then there's not having to buy high priced replacement rechargeables when I burn down the originals. I also wanted a decent kit lens, which this camera has. It's not a bad piece of glass, and it actually has a metal mount, which some of the entry level dSLRs don't. I mostly wanted to use Secure Digital memory cards, as they seem to have a speed advantage on many of the other cards, and they can be gotten for fairly reasonable prices. Less of a requirement was wanting a camera with a body-centric anti-shake system, to give better results, more easily, in more conditions, with any lens, and without the use of a tripod. The other side of that is not having to buy those super high priced image stabilizer lenses... not being a pro shooter, I just can't justify that cost.

All that said, after many choices made and changed during the shopping process, over the past year or two, I finally settled on the Pentax K100D. I was able to get it for $520 with the kit lens, and there is a fifty dollar rebate through Pentax on the camera body, right now, until late July. Any of the high level near-SLR digitals on the market cost very close to this price or higher. Most of the real entry level dSLRs are considerably higher.

I have used JPGs as my main shooting format with previous cameras, even though I had TIFFs available, but since purchasing this Pentax, I shoot in RAW only mode. The free downloadable photo utility Irfanview will view, edit, and print them, as well as the fairly good Pentax software that comes with the camera. It's like having the shot back again to adjust the camera, and you can salvage some bad shooting choices in many instances.

It's a good camera to handle, takes great images, and doesn't cost so much I can't afford to buy memory cards and batteries after buying it. To hold it is nice, too... it has a little heft, but feels nicely substantial, rather than flimsy, like some of the entry level dSLRs.

This is less an advertisement for my Pentax camera as an illustration of the process I went through and what I discovered after the purchase. I wish you well on your buying quest, and hope you are as satisfied as I am with the final purchase.

Stefan, I too investigated dSLR when I was ready to move up from my Canon digi SureShot. I've used a 35mm SLR for years and wanted the versatility of an SLR in a digital format. I've had Canons almost exclusively, but their dSLR's simply didn't "feel" right in my hand. I checked out others too. One of the main drawbacks was not only the price of the camera, but getting all new lenses too! That gets expensive, frankly.

I discovered the Lumix quite by accident. But it incorporated one of the most important aspects (for me) of an SLR--longrange photography; and once I bought the camera, I had little else to buy. The built-in "anti-shake" works well--and yes I do use a tripod also. The 12x zoom on the Lumix is very sharp. Like any digital, it has an assortment of pre-determined shooting modes, or you can go totally manual if you want, including a lot of exposure compensation settings. It doesn't stop down as far as my SLR lenses, but depth of field is still good. I can fire off a lot of sequence shots quickly, too.

I slapped in a 2gig memory card, upped the resolution, and I'm ready to go shooting! I am very satisfied with the Lumix.
Don't know if this helps, but thought I'd contribute my 2 cents worth.
Happy shutterbugging!

For your budget, the Canon is excellent but for the same reasons already mentioned, the Nikon fits better in my larger hands. And if the camera doesn't fit in your hands, it's as good as worthless.

Regarding frames per second, there's not a chance you will get over 3 FPS for under $1000. And NOTHING will even do that unless you get good fast media to write to. Buy cheapo memory cards and you will be limited to a much slower write speed. I don't know where someone got 5 or 6 FPS but I researched it a lot and there's just nothing out there but the expensive professional cameras well out of your price range. But take heart: I'm capturing hummingbirds in flight (http://files.tagworld.com/7b014a6a9f3f40e7b0f8b915f23db09e.jpeg) and dragonflies buzzing by (http://files.tagworld.com/384b103af88d414b84284e7517354e82.jpeg) with 2.2 frames per second with my Nikon D80 and a slow memory card. Timing and practicing "aim and focus" on EVERYTHING that moves got me fast enough to catch anything I want to catch, including butterflies in flight.

I'd also like to suggest you buy from Ritz or one of their family of stores. One of the major selling points for me going there was the awesome service agreements and the FREE CLASSES. In just one class, you can learn a TON about photography and a good teacher will be able to answer your questions about your camera as well. I studied digital photography about a year before buy my D80 and learned more in two hours than two books combined. LOL! (No, I don't work for Ritz or any camera store; I shopped stores as well.)

My Nikon does have a major dust problem and I really take care of it. But just opening the body and changing lenses gets dust everywhere and cleaning it out is almost impossible. Canon has a huge advantage there. I've taken to just marking where the dust is and editing it out in the processing stage - a poor man's work-around and it sucks royally.

The one thing I didn't read (and I'm sorry but I didn't read all 100 comments/replies! DAMN!!!!) is that you'll be spending a ton more than the camera on lenses for macro (extreme close-up) photography using DSLR. This disturbed me greatly since I fell in love with macro using cheapo cameras and my "pocket rocket" Olympus IR-500. So whatever you do, KEEP YOUR CHEAPO CAMERAS! If not for that foresight, I'm be out another $300 for DSLR macro!! If you get a good intermediate zoom lens for your DSLR tho, you can reasonably hold it steady enough for what appears to be extreme close-ups and you can also hold it steady using a tripod. Once again, the Canon has the advantage there as they have less expensive lenses with anti-shake build-in. At 50 years old, anti-shake (or a firm tripod) is...uh, vital for me with telephoto lenses. LMAO!

Finally, whatever feels right for you is right for you. You want to take photos. If you hate your camera or even don't feel it's an extension of your eyes and hands, it's worthless at any price. I got Nikon, some get Canon, and some get at least 10 other good to great brands. If you're looking for a deal, SHOP. If you're looking for expandability in lenses, SHOP. If you're looking for fun, DSLR will rock your world - HARD!

Best of luck!

...I'd go with the highest end of point and shoot cameras. Some offer complete manual controls for all situations and all offer macro. I don't think I'd feel comfortable with a dentist holding a 3 pound, HUGE (from a patient's perspective) DSLR camera over my face - even if he was an ace photographer. And I go to the dentist for an ace dentist, not an ace photographer. Sir, you'd scare the ever-loving crap out of me with my face under a DSLR!

Besides, a DSLR is only as good as the lens for macro. And a good macro lens costs a LOT more than the camera. It's also a lot longer so you'd either have to put the patient as low as the chair would go (if it can go that low) and stand over him/her with something that will look like instant death if it falls or do zoom without being able to get close enough for tiny locations in the back of a small mouth.

Someone else may see something I don't see but I doubt it. I think you started off with the best tool for the job.

Hi...

The short answer is: "If you have to ask about dSLR cameras, I would suggest you stay away from them and continue with the SLR-like (or point and shoot) digital cameras."

One additional thing...if you don't take 75-100 pics per week (every week) normally and 200-300 pics on special days, then stay away from dSLR cameras! Of course, most amateur photographers get these dSLR camera systems as a 'status symbol', as in "see what I can buy".

I suggest you expand your existing camera's accessories rather than getting a new dSLR!

Ciao...JJ

Dear Stefan,
you have already received lots of good advice, but there's one I haven't found among the many letters:
Choose a camera that's right for what you are going to photograph.
Sports & wildlife? In that case, you cannot tolerate a long shutter delay. Test cameras you like - and don't throw away the old film-SLR if milliseconds are the difference between success and failure. Also, check the delay between exposures & video.
Travel? A digital SLR is bulky and heavy, you'll hate it before you're back from your first big trip.
Portraits and nature? Check that it works nicely on a tripod. Shutter delay may not be a problem. Pluses for big screen and lots of bytes. No real reason to pick the dSLR.
Available light photography? Here the dSLR has an advantage - wide-opening lenses allow lower ISO, better image quality at low light.
Generally, there are many excellent cameras on the market. If you don't need long focal lengths, get a model that's compact but not so small that it's fiddly to use. If you're going to take it with you when biking, hiking, mountain climbing, etc, look for something that could have been designed for Army use - well sealed, no controls that can easily be broken, etc.
With a fixed wide-range "pretend-SLR" zoom camera, you get most of the advantages of an SLR and few of the disadvantages. Zooms now range to 400 mm and over, and some have accessories to increase wide-angle coverage.
Stefan, as so many people have told you already, you'll probably be happier with a non-SLR, and that will allow you to buy several useful things without exceeding your budget. Maybe a good tripod, a better printer, photo-related stuff for your computer. Again, it's a matter of the intended use...
Best of luck,
Lars

At least as important as the type of camera you buy is an honest self-appraisal of what you intend to do by way of image-making. Point-and-shoot cameras are made for precisely that: To allow Uncle Purvis to grab a few pictures of Aunt Minnie's birthday party or to let Tripp and Bitsy bring home pictures from their cruise. The fact that the operating systems of point-and-shoots allows the inclusion of lots of ginchy "features" does not alter this basic truth. Nor does the bleating of those who claim that they routinely make gallery-quality prints from images captured by their $175 Cheeze-O-Matic 307-J with 28X digital zoom and 13 quintillion megapixels.

Moving to a DSLR enables you to transition from snapping Baby Pauline's Baptism Party to real image-making. Alas, the majority of people who buy DSLRs do so more for self-image than for digital image. I'm a professional photographer and I can tell you that not one in one thousand self-proclaimed "serious" amateur photographers uses even 25% of the capability of his or her expensive DSLR. Heck, even a dedicated and hard-working pro seldom uses even half of what the camera will do.

But it isn't the pro vs amateur distinction that matters. There are many, many amateurs out there who beat the pros hands down on image quality...both technical and compositional. What matters is your commitment to the endless hours of practice and hard work that go into developing serious camera skills. If you are willing to commit to that level of dedication then go for a good DSLR. If not, pick a nice point-and-shoot and be happy with it.

Numerous other responders have provided excellent advice about brands and lenses and features. I will recap very briefly.

+ There are two brands to consider: Nikon and Canon. Period. Try them out and choose the one that seems best to you. All the high-cost advertising in the world will not change the fact that either of those brands will take better images than their owners.
+ Forget the hybrid mutants that look like DSLRs but have fixed lenses. They offer nothing of genuine significance that you cannot get in a smaller, more convenient package. Except bragging rights, maybe.
+ Buy lenses from the body manufacturer. That is not to say that there are not decent 3rd party lenses out there but, overall, you are far better off to spend a few more bucks and get the lenses that were designed specifically for the body you choose.
+ Base your selection more on ergonomics than on esoteric statistics or exotic features. I assure you that you will NEVER see the difference between a 7-segment autofocusing sensor and one with 28 segments...or 280 segments.
+ Ignore Gee-Whiz numbers. Remember that when you look at a fine image you are seeing the skill of the photographer much more than the capability of the camera. Read Ken Lockwell (www.kenrockwell.com) in this regard.
+ As the cabbie said when asked how to get to Carnegie Hall, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE.

And have fun. That's the most important part.

...because a professional photographer said so.

A "professional photographer" wrote:

"There are two brands to consider: Nikon and Canon. Period. Try them out and choose the one that seems best to you. All the high-cost advertising in the world will not change the fact that either of those brands will take better images than their owners."

Declarative, unqualified statements followed by a rhetorical "period" often translate as: "I can provide no rational basis for why I believe this, but if I make myself seem hyper-confident, I'll discourage anyone from making me back-up the statement." These statements are often preceded by a claim that this person is an authority on the overarching topic.

Of all manufacturers of cameras, Canon is outdone in "high-cost advertising" only by Sony. Sony is currently running a campaign for a point-and-shoot model with "face detection" (You know the one: Dad is not a horse's rear end). There's a Canon television commercial that's been running consistently for months: something about "Why we love football." Nikon has an ongoing "Legends Behind the Lens" campaign which appears as a menu selection on Tivo DVRs. In contrast, I can't remember the last time I saw an Olympus or Pentax campaign. So if a "professional photographer" makes a claim that ONLY two manufacturers make worthy DSLR cameras, and those two happen to be among the three who do expensive, wide-reach marketing, I'd have reason to suspect that this "professional" is himself under the influence of said marketing.

It very well may be the case that Canon and Nikon make the best professional equipment: although I wonder what Sigma users would have to say about that; but Sigma doesn't do "high-cost advertising," so, amazingly enough, Sigma using professionals are a relative few. Because a company produces superior professional grade equipment, it does not necessarily follow that its consumer-level products are wholly superior to comparable products from other manufacturers.

Based upon the dozens of comprehensive reviews that I read written by knowledgeable "professional photographers," and the sample photography which accompanied those reviews, there are indeed worthy contenders on the market that do not bear Canon or Nikon branding.

Empty rhetoric, no matter how seemingly authoritative is its source, is still just empty rhetoric.

...so just stop thinking for yourself.

Remember, the respondent is a self proclaimed "professional" who has provided no support for his claims. Operative fallacy: Appeal to Authority.

"Again. Two brands to consider in DSLRs: Nikon and Canon."

Re-presentation of previously stated idea without provision of supporting information.

"That is hardly empty rhetoric, being the opinion shared by the overwhelming majority of both advanced amateurs and working professionals."

A novice photographer on a tight budget, like the one whose questions have served as the basis for this thread, might have a different set of priorities than does the "overwhelming majority of advanced amateurs and professionals."

My respondent's believes that his unsupported claims simply couldn't be rhetoric because the "overwhelming majority" agree with him. Operative fallacy: Appeal to Popularity (Incidentally my respondent is absolutely correct about the near unanimity of thought regarding the alleged superiority of Canon and Nikon. Where he and the rest of the overwhelming majority fail is in articulating factual information which would establish this purported superiority).

"One thing we've established for sure, though: My critic doesn't own either one."

A fact about which I have already stated, proudly I might add, in this forum. The irony is that before making my purchase, I specifically sought out the opinions and the evaluations of professionals with a view toward understanding why I should just assume the superiority of Canon and Nikon. Most of what I got for my effort is a bunch of specious claims and unending examples of the aforementioned fallacious logic; the remainder was a clutch of unbiased and largely favorable reviews for the products of competing manufacturers, one of which I bought. Next time around, I might buy either a Canon or Nikon, but I will do so because either of those manufacturers builds the camera which best serves my needs within an achievable price range.

"And Sigma? Well....if you don't use it much it might not actually fall off the camera in pieces. Apart from that...."

Well, this is at least a direct claim about the build quality of Sigma products. I have no idea if it's true, but given the respondent's penchant for rhetoric, I can't give the claim much weight.

What nikon camera are you using?

In my previous post I focused on Canon & Nikon DSLR's - simply because these are the two that I was considering. There are other DSLR out there that may or may not be as good/bad as the Nikon and/or Canon.

This post is to talk about some of the "Point & Shoot" digital camera's. The last point & shoot I purchased was the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30. This is also a great camera with awesome features. For one it has a 12x optical zoom (35 - 420 mm equiv) an F2.8 - F11; and 8 megapixels. This is a powerful camera that can accomodate many of the items you mentioned. If you are shooting outdoor, you'll have no problem stopping action and you'll also get 2fps (max). You also get video (if this is important to you) and iso of 80-400. I only replaced this camera because for gymnastics this was not a good match - but that's the only reason.

This is a great camera that I still carry with me because it is very powerful. Todays price is in the neighborhood of: $350.00. More information can be found on Panasonics latest version of this camera at: http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/vModelDetail?storeId=15001&catalogId=13401&itemId=106540&catGroupId=24999&modelNo=DMC-FZ8K&surfModel=DMC-FZ8K&cacheProgram=11002&cachePartner=7000000000000005702

Check out http://www.dpreview.com/ for more information on various camera's. Sony makes some excellent Point & Shoot Digitals as well.

I understand budgets - boy, do I understand budgets. So ... you might be able to find a Canon 20D somewhere and it is a wonderful camera! Yes, Canon has newer versions of the camera but the 20D is a great way to start in Digital SLR. And, since it's one of the "older" cameras, you might get a good deal!

I'm not going to repeat info in the previous responses, but you just can't go wrong with this camera. Fast, flexible, clear shots ... and you have so many lenses from which to choose that you can do anything you want with this camera.

Before everyone jumps on me ... yes, I know that there are newer Canon cameras ... but the 20D is still used by lots and lots of pros. Why spend more money if you don't have to?

The Sony (read Minolta) A100. This camera is within the price range of the others mentioned, has some very nice features and works with Minolta lesnses.

The reason I put "read Minolta" is because Sony bought camera features from Knonica Minolta. This is a new camera to the dSLR matket, but all the inards are from an industry leader. We still have a Minolta SLR that dates back to the 1970's.

AF, Dust removal CCD, 2.5 LCD, up to ISO 1600, apature controls, and several others. The CNET review on the Sony Alpha 100 dSLR is very helpful.

The other cameras listed in the "approved" response are also reviewd in CNET's hardware section, all well done. They should help greatly when matching features and deciding on what you want.

SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex where 'Reflex' refers to the mirror that allows you to see through the same lens that the film 'sees' through. That freeze-up when you take a snapshot is your camera simulating that mirror flipping out of the way so that the shutter can expose the film. This works well on a camcorder because it reminds you that the image will be frozen on the recording but for a still camera it's almost as stupid as leaving the mirror in there and making it a TRUE SLR.