New digital SLR

H

haunteddoc

Member
This is my first post here. So here goes.

I am finally going to buy a digital SLR. (Thanks Tim, your photo tours at Mouse Fest put me over the top to go ahead and get one.)

So, what should I look for in a digital SLR camera? I would tend to lean towards Canon since I have some old lenses from my Canon A-1(I assume these would work?)

What should I look for in a good Flash. I already have a tripod that should work.


Haunteddoc (aka Dr Jim)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reusing your lenses won't work as they are FD lenses and you need to use EF or EF-S lenses now.

In terms of where to start - Rebel XTi and a 430EX flash is very workable. If you need a bigger camera, but want that same price range, look into the used 20D market.

If you have the budget, go 30D.
 
I will actually buck the trend and say you should look at the new Pentax or maybe the Sony, since you will basically be starting over. idarknight is correct, those are FD lenses and won't autofocus or maybe even work with a very special FD to EF adapter on the new DSLRs.

Try them out and use what you like.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"rlongenbach" said:
I will actually buck the trend and say you should look at the new Pentax or maybe the Sony, since you will basically be starting over. idarknight is correct, those are FD lenses and won't autofocus or maybe even work with a very special FD to EF adapter on the new DSLRs.

Try them out and use what you like.
Click to expand...

If you are looking at P&S, then the Sony R series is nice or the Canon G7 in the high end (matching the SLR pricing). Though the mid range cameras are mighty nice these days as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nice to see you here, dr. jim. it was a pleasure meeting you and your wife at mousefest and i thank you for all of your support. it was great meeting so many people there. i had an absolute blast and hope you did too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just upgraded to a Rebel XTi from a Rebel; great choice! I really want to wait for the 3D next year and go full frame, but needed something better for the trip to WDW next year. Highly recommend this; it is amazing how far Digital technology has come in three years
 
i would urge going either canon or nikon dslr, either brand is equally as good, i use canon because it's what i started with , replaced our old manual argus with an eos rebel when it broke and could no longer get parts, then canon dslr because i already was invested in canon lenses. can't stand those flame wars that claim one brand sucks and other is greatest, each line has strong and weak points
rebel xt at clearance prices with kit lens is a great way to start dslr, then stay with that body while spending your $ on high quality glass, i can't speak for nikon, but canon has corporate philosophy of retro fit engineering, my older eos lenses fit the canon dslr, in fact when i got my 20d, my d60 and non L lenses went to my mother as her first digital camera
the only bump i will give to canon is they seem to have an edge in the autofocus, hence so many canons and white glass on the sidelines of pro sports
good glass holds it's value for a long time, and many good condition L lenses can be found on the market, especially the older L's are becoming available as upgrades to the product occur and working pro's upgrade
 
I'm a Canon gal, so I'd recommend Canon if you one day want to go real serious (I don't mean to say that Nikon can't be used for serious stuff, I just don't have enough experience with high-end Nikon stuff). However, if you want a walkaround dSLR, I strongly recommend Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR lens (ar at least 18-135 VR).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
your old canon lenses won't work, they won't even fit, on an "EOS" (canon autofocus) camera.

so since you're starting from zero let me write up a few things. head over to photo.net. theres a lot of good information in the learning section (see the tab at the top, i think its on the right side) that will help you get started (it was a huge help to me in the beginning.)

i read there a really good quote:
Nikon makes the best lenses,
minolta makes the best cameras
Canon makes the best compromise.

minolta is now sony so the old minolta lenses (which should be pretty cheap on secondary sources - keh.com is the best IMHO - far better than ebay) nd the sony camera is just a rebranded minolta 7 (which is pretty awesome as cameras go)

in essense there's reall;y no difference between them all. so go to a store and hand hold them, try them out. if you live in the NY area go to B&H they have everything at great prices and they actually let you hold the camera and any lens you want (not like best buy which keeps it teathered to a table so you never really know the weight).

feel is very important. if you like holding it you'll use it more, especially with heavy lenses on the front.
the midrange (1200$) dslr are heavier and feel more substantial, they also may have more options and doo-dads than the cheaper ones. but the 700$ nikon, pentax, canons are very good cameras.


what really matters is the lens. get a $10,000 medium format hassel and put a junk lens in front of it anmd the camera is worthless. save money on the camera and spend it ont he glass.

(oh, lost is on, i'll be back.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
although I respectfully disagree with the quote re: Nikon vs Minolta vs Canon (to me, they each have their great lenses, great features, etc. depending what you need). The lenses are FAR more important than the body.

You'll get a far better picture using the old original dRebel with 17-55 f/2.8 IS (total purchase maybe around US$2k including battery grip) than a 30D with 17-55 kit lens (total purchase will also be around US$2k including battery grip).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Kelly Grannell" said:
The lenses are FAR more important than the body.
Click to expand...

absolutely 100% agree with that. i waited to get my 5d until i had a bag full of nice shiny L lenses. i would never have gotten it without them. a cheap lens on an expensive camera is still a cheap lens. period.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed.

I think I've heard that quote before, but it may have occured during the EOS infancy, which puzzled many people. Nikon kept the same mount as their manual focus lenses, but Canon decided to ditch. (and maybe 25 yrs later they'll split again). But they also did something that Nikon and Minolta didn't do - put the motors in the lens, not in the camera.

Nikon had to catch up with the HSM/USM technology on that one. That was the main reason I switched from Nikon to Canon almost 10 years ago. I didn't want my "body" to have to be upgraded to match current lens motor technology. But that was before digital, the B.D.P. era. In addition to the interface on the camera and I didn't mix...

And while the A100 may be mostly Minolta, it's the end of that line. The new Sonys are due out this fall and will be mostly Sony using the old Minolta mount, with a new Sony sensor (that won't be licensed to Nikon) Minolta never caught on to the optical image stabilization like Panasonic and Nikon have. So Sony has the sensor stabilization, which you can't see in a viewfinder (until they make the pure digital LCD viewfinder and then it really isn't an SLR anymore)

Bottom line - choose which ever one you like best.

I'm waiting to see if Canon does jump over to the Foveon sensor and/or this new mount (since the new sensor they have apparently developed has reached/exceeded the maximum optical resolution capability of modern lenses)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yeah, its an old quote from someone. but, as a canon user, I am completely envious of the top of the line Nikons like the F6 and F100. those things are machines of beauty. Canon's seem more direct in their functionality a lot more seems hidden under the hood (oh, and the minolt Maxxum 7 film camera absolutely rocked the socks off mid range canons but that was like 5 years ago.) IMHO

whereever you start you need 2-3 lenses (and remember everything but the highest end Canons have a 1.5x magnifier because the cips are smaller than 35mm film so the chip crops some of the image about a lens size...a 28mm lens with film acts like a 50mm lens on a dslr. a 50mm lens on a film camera makes the image of an 85mm lens on a dslr.)

those lenses for disney are fairly straight forward.
1. a walk around, probably zoom, lens different from the kit lens (avoid it, you'll just upgrade as soon as you realize what good glass can do). this lens is good for all kinds of outdoor shots in daylight. it will run 300-500$ and be a range like 28-135, 24-105, 17-40 (if you want wider views for landscapes or architectural shots). they will be fairly slow (F/3.5-5.6) but in bright daylight outside with a dslr (just crank up the ISO speed) all will be fine.

this lens will allow you to get the kids with characters on main street and then zoom in on the mayor passing by. its flexible, pretty light, fast to focus and will probably stay on your camera 80% of the time. plop it on a tripod, set it to wide angle and you can even shoot fireworks at night.


2. a fast prime lens for portraits and interiors.(35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8)
cheap doesn't always = bad. primes (single length lenses like 50mm, 85mm, 250mm) are smaller, lighter, faster (let more light in) and many times cheaper than a zoom equivalent. while a 300$ zoom will have a max aperture (f-stop) of 3.5 or 4, a prime will have a max aperture of 1.8, 2 or 2.8. aperture is like the richter scale in reverse. the lower the number the more light comes in, and it is double the light than the previous number

thus 2.8 allows twice as much light into the lens as f/4.0. f/2.0 allows 2x f/2.8 and 4x f/4.

so primes allow you to shoot inside when there is little light.
the standard is a 50/1.8 (about 75$). on a dslr the 50 acts like an 85 which gives you head/shoulder shots, perfect for portraits). the lens is small, light, cheap, very fast, very sharp. most companies also have a 50/1.4 big brother (about 300$) which is more substantial and quieter.

flash washes everything out so as a rule, I try to use as little flash as possible. want to photograph the kids meeting mickey in the judges tent without red eyes and blowing out all the highlights and washinng out the skin tones, use a fast lens and available light.

3. a telephoto lens (70-200, 75-300, 80-400) something which allows you to get close to something far away. want to get a closeup of belle during the parade. the kit lens (18-55) won't get close enough. plop on a 300 and there you go. want to take firework photos from the polynesian beach? you need a long range lens.

4. something really wide (10-22, 15, 20) allows you to fit a lot of stuff into the frame while being on top of it. stand right underneath the castle and with a 15mm lens you get the whole thing. be warned, wide angle lenses come with distortion (the middle bubbles out compared to the sides) and the wider they are the more distortion you generally get (which can be an advantage to make some realkly cool photos.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
here's the difference between wide (a 35mm in this case) and an 85mm (acting as a 135mm on the 20d body). this is the epcot model on the TTA and the important thing about getting these photos was the luck I had in having fast (wide aperture - 1.8, 2, 2.8) lenses with me when I happened to get stuck there. the wide shot is done while the ride is still moving. the zoomed shot was done once we were stuck.

@ ISO 3200 which is why it looks so grainy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top