Contemplating a D-SLR

[Devhux]

Well I've finally decided -- I want to really get back into photography.

Trouble is, I'm trying to decide whether to stick with my camera, or pick up the Nikon D50 D-SLR. Therefore, I'm curious to know the pros and cons of these types of cameras (I haven't owned an SLR of any type). The camera I have now is the Konica/Minolta Dimage A200 (same as zippyjuan's). I know the first thing I'd lose out on is the telephoto lens, but on the flipside, I know Nikon makes some great lenses.

Any advice would be appreciated. I plan to take mostly landscape shots (cityscapes, mountains -- that sort of thing).

(EDIT: One of my local retailers carries a kit for the D50 which has an AF-S DX 18-55mm ED lens and an AF-S DX 55-200mm ED lens for just over $1000 Canadian -- not sure how good those lenses would be though).

[ArkiStan]

You'd really love to have a nice zoooom lens wouldn't you? Surprisingly enough, despite how cool it would seem to be able to zoom in, 90+% of people really never find the need for one, especially if cityscapes and nature is your thing. What you're really gonna appreciate is having a wide angle lens and the nikon 18-55 is a very decent lens for this purpose. For digital SLR's 18mm is quite wide and will be good for most of your cityscape/nature shots. If you want a little more pulling power, a good alternative would be a used Nikon 18-70 dx lens (which used to come bundled with the D70's). It's widely regarded among amateur enthusiasts as one of the most versatile budget lenses (only for digital SLR's) around. It's also AF-S (supersonic focusing motor) like the 18-55, so it focuses really fast and quietly.

If you want the ultimate all-purpose lens, consider the Nikon AF-S 18-200. You get the ultra wide 18mm, the 200mm telephoto with VR2 technology to compensate for the hand-vibration, the ultimate enemy of telephoto shots, and everything in between. It's a bit pricey, but well worth it. The wide zoom range will allow you to carry fewer lenses around, and the VR2 technology will often even negate the need for a tripod.

Two major things you'll miss by having a larger camera is the ability to travel light and to be discrete. It'll be heavier when you carry it up to the mountains and everybody will notice and wonder what you're shooting when you point it on the streets.

[redcolours]

thanks for the heads up on what specific camera to get, ArkiStan. i know there are other D-SLRs out there, but i also needed some personal recommendations.

Im looking to set-up a mini portrait studio in my apartment (or soon to be house), and the SLRs provide better PQ and control for me. Im not gonna take them outside, maybe on really special occassions only.

IVE owned the Oly C2100 UZ, a nice primer into my foray into photography, and my next step after that was a D-SLR. I got sidetracked with a lot of concerts, and all i can sneak in there was the tiny cameras im using now. Its great and have done well for me, and im going to continue using them. Adding a D-SLR would get me back into what i wanted to do years ago for my home projects.

[ArkiStan]

Most brands and models of SLR's and DSLR's will give you virtually the same quality of pictures. A 25-year-old fully mechanical Nikon FM2 should give you exactly the same picture quality as a fully automatic flahship F6 made in 2005 as long as you use the same lens and film. Regardless of how much contraptions are attached to a camera, the only thing that determines the picture is the glass and the lens and the film the image is captured on. The only difference with newer/higher-end models is that everything (focusing/aperture/shutter speed) is automated. PQ will be the same.

Now with digital, CMOS's and CCD's use a digital algorith to process the pictures, so there tends to be a slight difference in feel (not PQ) between brands. The popular notion is that photos shot with Canon DSLR's shoot slightly warmer and more saturated making them ideal for portraits, and Nikons give you a more "raw" and colder feel making them favorites among purists who like to do their own post-processing. But this is very subjective. And we're talking very miniscule difference here and most people won't even notice it. It's like speakers. Don't listen to others. It's best to test it out yourself and get what you like.

That being said about brands, the same as what I said above applies for models. The only difference between entry level and flagship is the function/automation/ease of use. They should provide practically the same PQ. However, if you're considering digital, there is one thing that might require you to get a higher level model: resolution. If you're gonna be printing out large size portraits, you probably wanna get a higher resolution camera. See this chart to determing how much resolution you need.

Just find a decent camera that fits your requirement, and spend more time researching a couple good lenses that you can use. (Dive in with caution: may become extremely addictive. I've seen marriages shaken at their very foundations over husbands' addictive lens purchasing). Canon and Nikon both have a wide variety of quality lenses and you have tons of third-party lenses that should work for most cameras

For portrait studios, the one factor you should concentrate on most is the lighting. For natural/professional looking portraits, you'll have to get light boxes, reflective panels, controllable seconday flashes/constant fill lighting....it's complicated and expensive. Just make sure you do a lot of research.

Don't forget to learn Photoshop. Especially if you're doing portraits. Post-processing is a must (and is FUN!!).

[Devhux]

Thanks for the information.

Of special note was your point about taking the camera out in public -- I seem to have a hard enough time doing that with my current camera, so it might not be the best route to invest in a D-SLR just yet -- though we'll see what happens.

(If I do go the D-SLR route, I'll also pick up a pocket camera for those times when I just need a quick snapshot of something).

[redcolours]

thanks again.

i am thinking digital all the way. traditional photography is far more expensive for me to go into right now. equipment costs, space, etc. With digital, my darkroom is my computer and Photoshop. simple.
The portrait studio im thinking of is going to be also simple at first, and maybe make it more elaborate later on. at least that can be done far more easily,imho, compared to getting a good camera on the onset.
if i had the money, id experiment and use different D-SLRs, and compare to my own subjective opinion which one would be better. but lack of funds limit me to just getting one, and sticking to that. im thinking of it as an investment, and id like to make sure that investment is a good one the very first one i get.
more research is what i need, but thank you for giving out more pointers!

[clutchy]

Well I've finally decided -- I want to really get back into photography.

Trouble is, I'm trying to decide whether to stick with my camera, or pick up the Nikon D50 D-SLR. Therefore, I'm curious to know the pros and cons of these types of cameras (I haven't owned an SLR of any type). The camera I have now is the Konica/Minolta Dimage A200 (same as zippyjuan's). I know the first thing I'd lose out on is the telephoto lens, but on the flipside, I know Nikon makes some great lenses.

Any advice would be appreciated. I plan to take mostly landscape shots (cityscapes, mountains -- that sort of thing).

(EDIT: One of my local retailers carries a kit for the D50 which has an AF-S DX 18-55mm ED lens and an AF-S DX 55-200mm ED lens for just over $1000 Canadian -- not sure how good those lenses would be though).

I've had a D70 for over a year now, and i wouldn't hesitate to recommend it, although i'd actually steer people toward the d50, because believe it or not the picture quality and high ISO performance are better.

I'll agree with Arkistan about the lenses. Don't bother with the 18-55 55-200, and just go straight for the 18-70, or 18-200. I lust horribly after the 18-200 VR and with the second generation VR tech it's supposed to be really unbelievable for low light although the smaller aperture when zoomed kinda makes up for it.

I have the 18-70 and for the price you can't buy a better lens from any brand.


as far as colors go straight out of the camera. I can make my pictures look like a canon shot by adjusting the in camera processing options, but i choose not to. I shoot raw, and then i adjust the pics to my liking later on. However, if you're not intested in PP and some people have no interest, you can definitely make your camera spit out great pics w/o any post-processing(d50 especially).


One thing i will say about the Nikon brand that i can't say about canon, they always give you more than you pay for. Nikon has a longer upgrade cycle so they put more features into each model so that they won't have to upgrade it as often. Canon purposefully cripples their cameras so they have something to upgrade to in 1.5 years. The canon 20d to 30d is a perfect example of this.


whichever camera you end up picking, you really can't go wrong they're just such incredible pieces of technology.



EDIT: forgot about the nikon flash system, I have an SB-800... UNREAL, the flash for these cameras is absolutely incredible. the first time i saw one used i was stunned. They come with an onboard flash, but when you attach a flash gun and bounce one off the ceiling for the first time it'll blow you away. I'd get into detail about this flash, but half of the fun is discovering all the thought that was put into the design and function of it...

[Devhux]

Hmm -- the D50 only takes Secure Digital -- not CompactFlash (very odd).

[redcolours]

Hmm -- the D50 only takes Secure Digital -- not CompactFlash (very odd).

is that a disadvantage for you? if anything i think its an advantage, unless you already are stocked with CF cards to begin with. changing media card formats is always a pain. Or if youre looking for CFII compatibility.

thats actually good for me, since im using SD cards for my tiny cameras. no need to keep buying a different media card, just kep buying more of the same.
I prefer SD cards anyway, smaller, cheaper nowadays, and 4GB capacities are easy to come by now. And compared to CF cards they have generally faster write times. And from my understanding pull in less power. well, someone correct me please if thats erroneous.

[zippyjuan]

You will definately get more flexibility of use from a DSLR (useful in more situations) and the pictures shoule be better too. You get faster responce time, better in low light situations without getting too much grain. For those looking. the lenses are the most important element for a DSLR. The best come from Nikon and Cannon. The camera GuruX and I have comes with a 28- 200mm lens. In most cases, that is plenty of range. That 18- 200mm sounds very nice! If they were more compact, I would definately be tempted. I travel on foot or by bicycle so I really do not want a larger system to carry around so the A200 is right for me at this time. You have to decide what you want to use it for and what features you want. I would definately consider GuruX's idea of keeping a small digital around too for trips. This one looks interesting. It was selected best super zoom camera by a European imaging group. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06...nasonictz1.asp

[ArkiStan]

I like to use this comparison of driving a car. An SLR camera is like driving stick shift. If you're a seasoned driver you'll be able to drive more efficiently and smoothly than an average person with an automatic. However, it is also very unforgiving. Until you master it, it will immediately reveal all your flaws and the bad decisions you make.

[DarkFury]

I've had nothing but good experiences with my Canon EOS Rebel XT... and now the prices have been coming down on those.

Definitely a good "starter" D-SLR camera.

[Jeffbx]

What about Olympus? Anyone have the E-1 or E-500? Any good? The E-500 on the deals page today looks pretty tempting.

I got rid of my Olympus D-SLR about a year ago because it was just too much to lug around, but now I miss it. I think the only good solution is to have a nice D-SLR for high end pics, AND a smaller, high quality camera for every day use.

[ArkiStan]

What about Olympus? Anyone have the E-1 or E-500? Any good? The E-500 on the deals page today looks pretty tempting.

I got rid of my Olympus D-SLR about a year ago because it was just too much to lug around, but now I miss it. I think the only good solution is to have a nice D-SLR for high end pics, AND a smaller, high quality camera for every day use.

Three reasons you should think twice about getting an Olympus DSLR:

1. You can only use lenses made by Olumpus. Sigma makes a few third-party lenses for them, but your selection is still extremely limited. There are literally thousands of differend lenses, old and new, AF and MF, that are compatible with Nikons or Canons.
2. Very few people actually use Olympus, making it harder to sell/buy items on a used market later on.
3. As you can see from this article, DSLR CCD sensors are already small as they are. Olympus DSLR's use what they call a 4/3 frame CCD, which is even smaller than the typical DSLR sensor. If you're making the leap from a point-and-shoot to a big, heavy camera, might as well reap all the benefits. The bigger the CCD the better (more detail, less high-ISO noise, etc). Last year, Canon even released a full-frame (35mm) CCD sensors (Canon 5D).

[smeakim]

My wife and I own two digital Cameras. She uses the Nikon D70 and has had it for over a year. I own a P&S Fuji F10. We bought it with the kit lens then bought a 200mm zoom and then the wide angle fisheye. We also own the SB800. Here are some thoughts. The D70 is a heavy camera; you are not putting it in your pocket. The pictures I think come out of the camera stunning. It’s a 6mp which is plenty large enough unless you are going to blow things up into poster size prints. The reason we also bought a point and shoot is because it is way smaller. We don't have to worry about stuff getting on the sensor when changing lenses. Also my P&S can take better hand held low light shots than the Nikon. I am not saying the Nikon can't compete, but we use the cameras for different purposes. We have used the kit lens and the fisheye way more than the zoom. Be warned that the more you change lenses increases the chance of getting dust on the sensor. To get it cleaned will be about $40 or more. I am lucky there is a place in the Denver area that is a Nikon Service Center. Also another note is that the Canon Eos Rebels use special lenses that can’t be used on the more professional models. Any Nikon model can use most if not all the lenses. Also if you buy a lens for the D50 if you go up to one of their professional models the lenses will work on those as well. Be weary of the lenses included in that kit in Canada. They are probably not Nikkor lenses. JMHO

[ray]

I've had a Nikon D50 for several months now and would highly recommend it as a starter DSLR. The lenses, as most people have already mentioned, are simply amazing and best of all I can still use all my older Nikon lenses from my N65 days. Goodbye film, hello digital!

[clutchy]

FISHEYE!!!

Oh man I'm so jealous, I want that 10.5 fisheye so bad!! Man, Nikon makes all these awesome lenses that i just can't purchase right now... fisheye, 17-55, 18-200vr, 70-200vr, 85 1.4, 28 1.4.


although i did buy the 45 2.8p last night... moment of weakness and it was 100 off retail... not to mention discontinued...

[ArkiStan]

Oh man I'm so jealous, I want that 10.5 fisheye so bad!! Man, Nikon makes all these awesome lenses that i just can't purchase right now... fisheye, 17-55, 18-200vr, 70-200vr, 85 1.4, 28 1.4.

although i did buy the 45 2.8p last night... moment of weakness and it was 100 off retail... not to mention discontinued...

As I mentioned above, here we have a prime example of the hazards of entering the SLR realm.

[smeakim]

Yes the fisheye, zoom, and SB800 costs more than the body of the camera.