photography buffs, help me buy a DSLR camera

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
40d

[/ QUOTE ]

Cannot believe it took this long into the thread.

[kerowo]

Point and shoots usually have pretty bad shutter lag, so you tend to miss shots because they've moved after pressing the button. The lens quality isn't as good as the more expensive lenses that come with a DSLR. They are going to be much slower, so you'll need more light to take hand held shots. You'll probably be able to see lens distortions at more of the zoom range than with a DSLR lens. The sensor in the camera is going to be noisier than in a DSLR at the same ISO.

Generally, PASs are for people who want to take snap shots for their web page and aren't very serious about photography. The cameras that have been talked about in this thread are pro-sumer and are for when people start taking it more seriously.

Can you take stunning pictures with a PAS? Yup. Just not as easily and not in as wide a range of lighting situations as with a DSLR.

[4 High]

Is there a huge difference in quality say between a...

Carl Zeiss and a Schneider-Kreuznach compared to a DSLR lens on a Nikon or Canon?

[carol-ann]

I'd take a Pentax K10D over these cameras.

[Spanaway Vin]

[ QUOTE ]
My wife and I have had the Canon S3IS for about 1 year.



1) Lenses - How concerned should I be about the stock lenses? Should I go ahead and buy a better lens right out of the gate or learn with the stock lense first?

2) zoom - My current point and shoot has 10X optical zoom. What is the equivalent zoom on an SLR lens? I've tried googling this but haven't found a good answer.

3) in general, what should I be looking out for? I'm going to have this camera for a long time, so what should I be concerned with? Any tips on good books or DVDs for using an SLR? This camera will be for my wife but I would like to learn how to get the most out of it too.

Thanks OOT!

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Generally, from photography buffs, the answer will be yes, but I think that it's not always appropriate. It really depends on what you're using it for. I am a Canon guy myself and I find the kit lens to be passable, but as you grow into the camera and photography itself, you'll find yourself using it less. Still, not terrible. If you have the money, then sure, why not.

2. I found this:

[ QUOTE ]
Optical Zoom (X times zoom) and Digital Zoom
Optical zoom = maximum focal lenght / minimum focal length
For instance, the optical zoom of a 28-280mm zoom lens is 280mm/28mm or 10X. This means that the size of a subject projected on the film or sensor surface will be ten times larger at maximum tele (280mm) than at maximum wide angle (28mm). Optical zoom should not be confused with digital zoom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be too caught up in this though. Generally, you're going to want more than one lens. For example, you could have the EF-S 10-22mm for wide angle, the EF 24-70L for the middle range, and say the 70-200L for telephoto. (these are somewhat expensive lenses, but I'm just using them as an example). This is effectively 20x zoom based on the description i found above.

3. Beyond all the technical qualities, you should be looking for a camera that feels good in your hand. The best way to learn is to shoot a lot of photos, and get involved in online communities (Flickr has a good community) where you can post your photos, get feedback, talk about technical stuff, etc.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Lenses - How concerned should I be about the stock lenses? Should I go ahead and buy a better lens right out of the gate or learn with the stock lense first?



[/ QUOTE ]In general, the "kit" lenses aren't as good as aftermarket lenses. However, Canon just introduced a new lens, the 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS, which is being touted in reviews as being among the highest quality lenses for Canon. I don't know if the XTi will be sold in a kit with the new lens, but it will be less than $200.

Also, while the kit lens isn't as good, it is still a pretty good lens. I just printed out an 8x10 using the kit lens and it looks just fine.

[ QUOTE ]
2) zoom - My current point and shoot has 10X optical zoom. What is the equivalent zoom on an SLR lens?



[/ QUOTE ]The S3 has a lens equivalent to a 36-412 lens in 35 mm format.

[ QUOTE ]
3) in general, what should I be looking out for?

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, look for how they feel in your hand. Since you're a Canon user, you might be more used to the Canon system so it should be easier for you to learn the Canon than the Nikon.

Personally, I'm a Canon shooter and will always recommend Canon over Nikon. But in reality, you can't go wrong with either pick.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what has changed? the cameras you are considering all more than a year old.

[/ QUOTE ]

no they're not. D40x and XTi are new versions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The XTi is a new version, but it is more than a year old (introduced August 2006, reviewed in October 2006.)

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I chose the Nikon D80 over the D40 because of lens compatability - I have a significant investment in Nikor lenses that would not work on the D40.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my only real problem with the Nikon. Apparently, there is no auto-focus inside the body of the camera. That means that every lens you ever use with this camera must have an auto-focus built into the lens. I'm wondering if this is going to be a problem in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]The same is true for Canon lenses also (the AF is in the lens, not the body). But you shouldn't worry about that at all. Canon and Nikon will be around and making compatible lenses for a long time.

[ QUOTE ]
Other than that, I'm leaning towards the Nikon. I like the way the camera feels better and it seems to focus a little faster.

[/ QUOTE ]You may have been testing the "kit" lens for the Canon. Their higher-end lenses with USM focus almost instantly.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I heard that Canon lenses are better

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard that same thing. But I also read in more than 1 place that the lens that comes standard with the XTi (I know you said you got the XT) sucks. I'm worried about having to drop another $500 on a lens a month after I buy the camera.


[/ QUOTE ]

The other poster is probably right. Canon has a better reputation for lenses. Nikon has a better reputation for flashes.

But you don't need to spend $500 for high quality. Here is the lens I posted about earlier: only $180:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-...dp/B000V5K3FG/

As I said, it gets rave reviews:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...56is/index.htm

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
Point and shoots usually have pretty bad shutter lag, so you tend to miss shots because they've moved after pressing the button. The lens quality isn't as good as the more expensive lenses that come with a DSLR. They are going to be much slower, so you'll need more light to take hand held shots. You'll probably be able to see lens distortions at more of the zoom range than with a DSLR lens. The sensor in the camera is going to be noisier than in a DSLR at the same ISO.

Generally, PASs are for people who want to take snap shots for their web page and aren't very serious about photography. The cameras that have been talked about in this thread are pro-sumer and are for when people start taking it more seriously.

Can you take stunning pictures with a PAS? Yup. Just not as easily and not in as wide a range of lighting situations as with a DSLR.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good response. (except the slower speed comment P&S lenses are usually fairly fast. OP's S3 opens up to f/2.7. You generally can't get f/2.8 in a DSLR zoom lens without spending $900+).

The main advantages of a DSLR over a P&S:

1) focus speed/shutter lag. These are interchangeable because one of the reasons for shutter lag in s P&S is because it takes longer to focus. So, if you're taking photos of a moving target (e.g., your kids), you're a lot more likely to get an in focus shot using a DSLR.

2) Lighting flexibility. Most P&S cameras have a built-in flash with no option to use an external flash. The problem with the built-in flash is that it is too close to the lens (leading to red-eye), and it is not powerful enough (leading to dark photos and/or dark backgrounds. An external flash is much more powerful and is farther from the lens. Plus, you have the ability to move the flash off the camera. (You rarely see "professional" portraits taken with a flash located on the camera.)

3) Better high ISO performance. Today's DSLRs are very good even at ISO 800 or ISO 1600. Many P&S cameras are practically useless above ISO 400 because of noise. (compare http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonS3IS/page6.asp with http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page19.asp and http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page18.asp

Those are the main advantages, but as one becomes more advanced, they can branch out into different fields of photography, each of which has specialized lenses that are much better than P&S lenses (e.g., portrait lenses, long lenses for birding/sports, macro lenses for close-ups).

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
40d

[/ QUOTE ]

Cannot believe it took this long into the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great camera. But more than twice as much as OP wants to spend.

[ethan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
40d

[/ QUOTE ]

Cannot believe it took this long into the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great camera. But more than twice as much as OP wants to spend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the 40D, the Canon 50mm f/1.2, 50mm f/1.4, MP-E 65mm macro 1-5x, 100mm f/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm macro, and a few other lenses. The camera is amazing. My only complaint so far is that photos taken indoors with the auto white balance come out sort of yellow, but that's fixable in the camera settings (and you can always add RAW capture for later processing.)

The 50mm f/1.2 costs as much as the camera, but I'm getting horribly spoiled by how it works in low light. Short of spending $3K for an f/1 (or f/0.95) lens, it's about the best I'm going to get. There's really no need for most people to spend $1500 on it though - the 50mm f/1.4 is $300, and the f/1.8 is closer to $100. The picture quality you'll get off that last one is incredible for the price.